User talk:Nightstallion

---

	User	de	en		Talk		Contributions		E-Mail		Signature
		es
	Userboxes				Personal Notes		ToDo		Sandbox		Toolbox
	Interwiki				Language Subcommittee WL		Commons WL		Meta-Wiki WL		Incubator WL

---

Help finalising the logo for Wikiversity, the new logo for Wiktionary and the new logo for Wikibooks! Also consider a minor change to the Wikispecies logo.

---

Notes Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to discuss my actions, my personality, my lifestyle and whatever else you can think of here; critical comments are, of course, appreciated. If you just want to chat, that's fine, too! A few important notes: If you leave a comment here, I will respond here and not on some other talk page, unless you specifically request otherwise, so you may wish to add it to your own watchlist after adding your comments. On the other hand, if you are coming here to reply to a comment I left on your talk page, I'd prefer it if you replied on your talk page; I add users with whom I've started at least one conversation to my watchlist by default, so I'll notice when you reply. This way we can avoid having unnecessarily and confusingly halved conversations on both of our talk pages. Thanks for understanding and complying! Add a new comment! Archive α (19 December 2004 — 22 December 2005) Archive β (24 December 2005 — 25 January 2006) Archive γ (1 February 2006 — 9 March 2006) Archive δ (10 March 2006 — 28 April 2006) Archive ε (29 April 2006 — 13 June 2006) Archive ζ (14 June 2006 — 25 July 2006) Archive η (26 July 2006 — 1 October 2006) Archive θ (1 October 2006 — 27 December 2006) Archive ι (27 December 2006 — 1 March 2007)

Contents 1 Template:Political parties in Italy 2 Personal 3 Heh, interesting: Politics 4 Table help 5 Survey Invitation 6 Continuation 7 Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #10 8 Saint-Pierre and Miquelon flag and coat of arms 9 Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007. 10 New Serbian government = No Changes 10.1 Horror - crackdown 10.2 Problems 10.3 Solution 11 Re: Referendum 12 Defunct federations in the template 13 Separatism 14 The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007 15 Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 16 Tensions over Kosovo 17 Montenegro 18 Elections in Croatia 19 Kosovo 19.1 Part 2 20 Europarty spat 21 Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007. 22 Results table 23 Mathematician-3 Userbox display issue 24 Democratic Party (Italy) 25 Commons: Picture requests 26 motion to close mediation 27 Your edits to 2007 National People's Congress 28 News 28.1 Serbia 28.1.1 Kosovo 28.2 Montenegro 28.3 Croatia 29 Elections 30 Saint-Pierre and Miquelon 31 War 32 Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007. 33 €2 commemorative coin Treaty of Rome 34 (historical) 35 Ideal Austrian fovernment 36 MNE 37 Latin 38 Rahmon(ov) 39 National Popular Vote Interstate Compact 40 Developments 41 Kinshasa battle 42 Montenegrin Constitution 43 BTW, 44 Serbia, Kosovo 45 Your notes 46 Listing the names of the EU institutions... 47 Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007. 48 Replies 48.1 New Serbian government 49 Same job as usual 50 Re: Tomislav Nikolic 51 Me again 51.1 And a question 52 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007 53 Centre better than center 54 About you user page 55 Political Merger! 56 Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #11 57 Quick question

[edit] Template:Political parties in Italy

We need your final opinion in Template talk:Political parties in Italy. --Checco 15:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal

Can I ask you a personal question? What do you mean in your user page by stating that you are independentist? --Checco 19:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I mean that I generally sympathise with a lot of independence movements, though there are some which I do not really support (for instance Abkhazia, Padania, South Ossetia, Transnistria, ...). May I ask why you're interested? Just curiosity? —Nightstallion (?) 19:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't support the independence of the Serbian Republic from Bosnia and Herzegovina either. I think that Padania is (most probably) a joke, but is there a particular reason why you do not support the independences of South Ossetia and Transnistria (I think I can understand why not Abkhazia)?

I myself oppose all (each & every single one) separatist movement. --PaxEquilibrium 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I also don't support the Republika Srpska independence movement; South Ossetia, Transnistria and Abkhazia have all got the same reason behind it: The separatist sentiment is amplified and guided by Russia, which is trying to use it for its own benefit. (Lots of people had to leave these territories due to the Russian military occupying it when the Soviet Union collapsed.) —Nightstallion (?) 15:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I was not under the impression that such situation was with Transnistria? --PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What about other places - didn't a lot of people leave them too? 100,000-200,000 Serbs and Roms had to leave Kosovo after 1999 (only several thousand returned so far). Much more than half a million Bosnian Muslims (over four hundred thousand) and Croats (over a hundred thousand) do not live in the Serbian Republic anymore due to the 1992-1995 war and the nazi-style resettlement 1996 program (the number of returners is insignificant). Hundreds of thousands of Serbs were forced out the rest of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war and after 1995 (only about a hundred thousand returned so far). 450,000-600,000 Serbs were forced out of Krajina in Croatia during 1991-1995 (and since only several tens of thousands have returned).

And if we go through history, 500,000-800,000 (most approximately around 700,000) Albanians were forced out of Kosovo in 1996/98-1999. 100,000-200,000 Croats were forced out of the Republic of Serbian Krajina during the war. Just remember how many (tens of) thousands of Macedonians were forced out of northwest Macedonia and how many Albanians subsequently displaced. So you see, it could hardly be an indicator in such horrifying and devastating occasions. --PaxEquilibrium 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see only now your answer. I was only curious about it, anyway I'm a Venetian independentist but I can live with Italy. --Checco 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heh, interesting: Politics

It's always nice to meet people who have similar political views. BTW on wikipedia this is likely because wikipedians are skewed to the left, I've just done a small study on this. There are however some striking differences between us: I would never support the independence of Transnistria. Furthermore I would never call my self a social-liberal. Social-liberalism in the Netherlands means political centrism, I advocate radical social change: therefore I feel more attracted to the labels egalitarian-libertarianism or socialist-libertarianism. C mon 11:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither would I support the independence of Transnistria -- those four were examples of independence movements I don't support... And well, social-liberal is radical enough in Austria. (It's a fucking conservative country structurally -- too much agrarianism still around.) —Nightstallion (?) 11:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, shows how good I am at eavesdropping. C mon 16:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, no harm done. Nice to find people with the same opinion. :) What do you make of the Dutch election and the resulting government, BTW? —Nightstallion (?) 17:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You said the problem for Austria was that it's still conservative, the Dutch are rapidly moving to the same direction. For the elections I was shocked that all the progressive parties, the social-liberal D66, the market liberal VVD, the social-democratic PvdA and the green GreenLeft all lost seats in trade for conservatives and worse parties. Honestly I don't like the heading the Dutch electorate is taking. The previous government restricted our immigration policy and frontally attacked our multicultural reputation, thanks to Rita Verdonk. This government is centre-left, so finally there's some money for the environment, education and social security, but the cabinet is just so anti-individualist, conservative and comunotarian: Dutch policy on same sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia and soft drugs won't get reverted but the government will try to limit their application, while we need to extend these rights and protect them on the European level. All in all I'm very glad my party did not try to enter this cabinet. C mon 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I'd tend to agree with that -- though the VVD is not really all that progressive when it comes to immigration, either, is it? —Nightstallion (?) 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The VVD is split in two: there's the conservative populist Rita Verdonk, who basically advocates no to any migration and market liberal Mark Rutte who advocates no to asylum seekers but yes to Indian IT'ers, f.i. as migrant-workers. So in 2000 they championed the introduction of stricter migration laws for asylum seekers. The only thing the 2006 VVD program said about migration was that the Netherlands should open their borders to well-educated migrant workers. Interestingly the socialist SP, which has a populist and conservative streak, advocates the exact opposite open borders for asylum seekers but no migrant workers, because that might hurt the working class. C mon 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was what I didn't like about the SP. —Nightstallion (?) 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's only that? I could give you a list of 10 reasons to never vote SP, but then again you don't have that choice. C mon 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly wouldn't have voted for it, but I at least thought it nice that a leftist party gained. What are the other reasons against it? I'm afraid I don't know nearly as much about Dutch politics as I'd like to... —Nightstallion (?) 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you ten reasons not to vote SP:

1. The 1980s booklet "Gastarbeid en kapitaal" (migrant labour and capital), in which the SP claimed that migrant labour was invented by capitalists to split up the working class and that migrant workers should either integrate or remigrate. The SP has toned down this position in the 1990s but they are still skeptic about the multicultural society, while I favour it.
2. The 1980s booklet "Arbeidersvrouw en feminisme" (working woman and feminism), in which the SP claimed that feminism was invented by capitalists to split up the working class and that working women should not beinvolved in this bourgeoise movement. The SP has considerably toned down this position, but still are less progressive on womens' issues, while I think gender equality is very important.
3. Centralized, authoritarian organization: the main reason why I would never become active in the SP is that is highly regulated from above. The party still retains features of democratic socialism. What Jan Marijnissen says, goes. The chairs of their youth organization and the director of their scientific buro, which are officially independent organizations are MPs. I like open debate and autonomy of suborganization.
4. Euroskepticism: the SP is strongly against Europe, which they see as an invention of capitalism, while I see it as an alternative to nationalism. The SP is not a member of a pan-European party and only affiliates with the GUE/NGL.
5. Euthanasia: the SP opposed the Dutch euthanasia bill because they fear it will be used wrongly against elderly. I believe that self determination is very important and I like that the Dutch government grant their citizens such far reaching liberties.
6. Vote Against Vote SP: the SP was itself as a party of the opposition, while I believe in offering positive alternatives.
7. Hypocrisy: the SP claims to be the most leftwing party and a party of principled opposition, but actually it has moved to the centre considerably without anybody noticing, sadly.
8. Nationalism/Conservatism: overall the SP is very conservative, comunotarian and anti-individualist and basically wants the Netherlands to return to the fifties.
9. Dogmatism: the SP is still socialist, while I think we must develop new leftwing alternatives without dogma's
10. The SP is also very conservative and dogmatic to the extent that the current social institutions, like the welfare state, should not be changed: they want to protect those workers who are profitting from the welfare state, but don't see that there are groups, who are not included in the current systems.

That's ten: some of this is somewhat POV, but it's election time and I've just been campaigning for another party... C mon 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Taken in and noticed, thanks. Whom did you campaign for? GroenLinks? —Nightstallion (?) 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it didn't save us, we lost a seat in the Eerste Kamer and the SP tripled again. C mon 08:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table help

Have you got any idea of what's wrong with User:Nightstallion/peacekeeping missions? —Nightstallion (?) 13:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit on User:Nightstallion/peacekeeping missions did not solve the problem. This, this, and this edit fixed the problem. User:VolkovBot is the root cause, and someone has notified the bot owner. Thank you for trusting my ability with table. =) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I also notified the bot owner on his home wiki, ru. —Nightstallion (?) 12:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

[edit] Continuation

It got far too large to the north, let us not continue over there...

I was asking about your opinion on the fact that montenegrins living in Serbia were not allowed to vote on the referendum. --PaxEquilibrium 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. How's the government in your country? --PaxEquilibrium 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that was not fair, but a clever ploy to ensure that Montenegro became independent; we'll see whether that's good or bad for the country, but yes, basically it was unfair.

Regarding my country... Well, we just had a government of conservatives (Austrian People's Party) together with crypto-neo-nazis (Freedom Party of Austria, who split during the last year of government into the Freedom Party and the minor Carinthian Alliance for the Future of Austria which is led by the likely manic-depressive Jörg Haider) for six years and now have reverted to the classical Austrian grand coalition of social democrats (Social Democratic Party of Austria) and conservatives, which will not change anything in Austria too much. I'd certainly hope we will at some point in the future have a social democrat-green (The Greens – The Green Alternative) government, but up to now, there's never been a majority for the left in Austria... Bah. And I'd also like the communists (Communist Party of Austria) to finally make it into parliament again, which seems rather unlikely currently despite their GREAT successes in Graz' local and Styrian regional elections. —Nightstallion (?) 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging on the current parties, I'd bet this current government's better than the previous one.

You're really into the social-democratic-liberal bit, huh?

I myself am slightly controversial - I would never support nationalists, rightist, conservatives, authoritarians or extremists of any kind nor pick them over the liberal, democratic and/or social option - but am myself a fan of history, history of peoples in particular; am highly interested in culture, traditions ethnology, sympathize (to an extent) with the royalists and am (some) kind of a religious man. I think not even can I understand myself. That's why I don't vote, probably. :D

Mh, interesting. I'm a clear republican, myself... And I think it's very sad that you don't vote at all, personally, but it is of course your choice. —Nightstallion (?) 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's no longer necessary - after Milosevic's defeat I withdrew from "political activity". Besides, the parties in Croatia and Serbia simply do not have good choices. I would like to vote in Montenegrin elections on the other hand, to oust Milo Djukanovic as soon as possible - but the government registers that I "live in Croatia" and thus, I cannot vote (would gladly vote though). --PaxEquilibrium 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Actually, Montenegro might be the first (only) ex-yu country to experience heavy problems (not counting all the wars & killings, but exclusively economic dependence on each other). Ever since the New Year's Eve (the 2006 budget has been spent), taxes have risen vastly and a large part of the population (largely concentrating amongst the poor, those supporting the opposition and resenting the government, Slavic adherents of Islam, Serbs and concentrated in the northeastern half of the country) refuses to pay taxes as per the call of the opposition. This is because the Republic of Montenegro completely depended on Serbia's economy in the period 1992-2006 (and to an extent, even before). The opposition has united to vote out the government and negotiates with the SDP CG to win a parliamentary majority, but that's not gonna happen so emigration to Serbia is now bigger than ever.

BTW, there are almost three hundred thousand montenegrins in Serbia.

I might be too harsh on this one, but if the people was dumb enough to leave Montenegro to Serbia because they considered it a poor state, they shouldn't now be complainin' how a minority is stealing they homeland (counting those people, Serbs form the majority of Montenegro's population). --PaxEquilibrium 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, that will likely lead to problems soon... —Nightstallion (?) 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, what in specific (sorry if I seems slow)? --PaxEquilibrium 18:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro's economic problems... —Nightstallion (?) 19:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo is stashing millions of German Marks and Euros stolen from the state in the stake (unlike the Serbian oligarchs that stashed it in Cyprus), and by rotating the money I think that he's new re-investment plan will invest (as he plans) all that DPS squeezed out from the people in 15-20 years (although it's happening rather slowly, the government is heavily corrupted and unwilling to give up all the wealth so risky investing in circles that aren't profitable). However, the greater threat to the ruling class is that the International Community is forcing Milo to allow the diaspora to vote in elections, in which case the montenegrin population in Serbia will without much difficulty oust him from office. That's why Djukanovic will try to evade a Constitutional referendum at all costs. His previous explanation was that the montengrins in Serbia would have double votes (in Serbia and in Montenegro), but now S&M no longer exists, so he resorted to other means. His party suggested that all montenegrins in Serbia either have to forfeit their Montenegrin citizenship or return to Montenegro - it naturally failed, but Djukanovic is still advocating for it (defending it by the fact that he says that Montenegro should have as less with Serbia as possible). --PaxEquilibrium 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way - DS & DSS have just signed a preliminary contract for a coalition government. DS and G17+ are negotiating about ministries. As it seems, LDP will not be in the government (these parties alone will form a government and award one ministry to the minorities]). It appears that SRS, SPS & LDP will remain the opposition bearers of the three distinct ideologies which aren't right now appropriate to Serbia.

As for Montenegro - at Fall the Constitution will be presented. If there is no consensus between the ruling coalition and the opposition (at which I am definitely certain, they are just at too much odds), I believe that Milo will not receive a total parliamentary qualification to pass the Constitution. This means there will most probably be a referendum for acceptance of the constitution (taking to granted that a weird compromise isn't achieved). This might be a good occasion for the opposition to look through their differences and (re)unite in a campaign against the referendum, but that will be a hard task. They were wrong when they were saying that the "Last line of defense" was the 2006 referendum or the subsequent election, I think this is the last chance. If the Constitution gets adopted, Milo will have won its very last major battle. If it fails - DPS will finally be defeated. The only problem (I think) is that the Constitution presented will be good and get the majority of the votes... chances are higher in Milo's favor, but considering what's at stake for the opposition (either victory or defeat), I think they'll take it. It's also a bad thing, because the rejection of the constitution will even more hurt the opposition's appeal, making it seem bad and further strengthen Milo and his buddies (in which case Milo will win FOREVER).

Much is at stake - either support the constitution and potentially increase the number of supporters [and unite strength] or shoot at the opposition again - in which case there could be only a strong victory or a total defeat (this time full-scale, unlike the last referendum). I'd advice them to aim at the first one. What about you? --PaxEquilibrium 20:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'd prefer the former. Montenegro can not be governed against the Serbs or its minorities. —Nightstallion (?) 19:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it already functions for about a decade or so already. I'm just hypothesizing that if the referendum for the Constitutional fails, that will be a defeat that will set Milosevic's successors back finally (do you see the advantage if the opposition could work it out?). --PaxEquilibrium 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #10

[edit] Saint-Pierre and Miquelon flag and coat of arms

The unofficial coat of arms shouldn't be okay with you, if the flag isn't okay. Whatever logic you are using to argue against the SPM flag applies equally to the coat of arms (in fact, I'd guess that it applies even more strongly, since people aren't really likely to display the coat of arms anywhere, while the flags regularly fly). If you are willing to "compromise" and leave the coat of arms, then that shows that you are willing to compromise the entire principle that your argument is based on, and even further add to the inconsistency that you claim you want to help correct by changing the flag to that of France. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, not at all. A lot of articles show inofficial coats of arms, as there is VERY rarely an actual law which states that a certain city has a certain coat of arms or not. Therefore, this compromise is possible, if you would be so kind as to go even one step away from the version you think is the only truth. —Nightstallion (?) 09:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

St-Pierre and Miquelon is not a city, so the analogy is not exactly fitting. However, even if it were the case that this was the way it was done on other similar articles, that still wouldn't be reason for it to sit on this article. If the flag is not shown for being unofficial, then the coat of arms should not be shown for the same reason. Period. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The way the article currently looks is fine with me; I would prefer showing the French flag in the infobox, but it's no must for me. —Nightstallion (?) 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Serbian government = No Changes

Kostunica remains Premier; the DSS will get only one Ministry (+one for NS); DS will gain the vast majority of the government; G17+minorities will fill in the gaps. There are still some vague options of open governmental resources for LDP, but I think the ideological differences between DSS-NS and LDP are just far too much (no sirrey!). SRS & SPS stay only in opposition (although there are indications SPS will support this government; it supported the last one). --PaxEquilibrium 09:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horror - crackdown

DS and DSS delayed all negotiations to 13 March (I think you were right, it appears they wanna see how it's gonna play out with Kosovo).

G17+ (betrayed DS?) joined the DSS-NS coalition and finally Kostunica and the rest of them exposed why they opposed Tadic's proposal that general election (presidential, provincial, etc) be held. The DSS-NS & G17+ not only agreed that the President and Premier cannot belong to the same political party, but also already split all key seats in the new government (including President, Vice-presidents, internal affairs, economy, etc), whereas most of the remaining (dumb ones) seats would go to the DS. This new Kostunica's coalition also agreed prevent SRS & SPS, but also LDP, from entering the new government. DS responded to this through open disappointment, is negotiating with the coalition around LDP about a new election on which DS-LDP will form a coalition (and compete with the Radicals and the DSS-NS-G17+).

I personally think this is outrageous and that new elections cannot help the country. Oh, woe is me! --PaxEquilibrium 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Why does G17+ suddenly support the conservative-nationalists? I don't really get it... —Nightstallion (?) 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mladjan Dinkic (group's leader; wants only the the Finance Ministry and only that and nothing else) is Bozidar Djelic's (democrat candidate for Prime Minister; who will only accept the ministry of finance if not the Presidential seat and what's more important would rather die than let Mladjan be Minister of Finance) childhood enemy. --PaxEquilibrium 19:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Curious. Please do keep me posted. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is one more thing: President Boris Tadic (DS) just openly indirectly approved Kostunica's (DSS-NS) demands for the Premier seat, but that's as far as DS would go. If they let Kostunica (and I think they will), that leaves the G17+ question still open and they will most certainly not pull down there; G17 still demands the Finance Ministry and will accept nothing else... I guess everything depends on two little tiny men (Bozidar Djelic & Mladjan Dinkic). --PaxEquilibrium 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As is often the case in politics, yeah... Let's hope for the best. —Nightstallion (?) 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

DS & DSS negotiations have reached a moot end. All negotiations have stopped. The parties claim that they are certain the government will be formed by the end of this month, but they admit the thrill is much less than it was in past few weeks. --PaxEquilibrium 16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they don't agree by 15 April, there'll be early elections, right? Not good... —Nightstallion (?) 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

These are the problems: DSS-NS demanded to form a government with DS only if it would agree with 5 of its principles, suggested guidelines/directives for the new government. DS signed the deal:

1) Preservation of Kosovo-Metohija within the territorial integrity of Serbia

2) Completion of cooperation with the ICTY

3) Becoming a candidate for the EU

4) Rooting out of high-placed corruption

5) Decreasing (huge) unemployment & improving the (weak) standards of Serbia's citizens

However, DS was shocked when it noticed that the populists signed a sixth principle with G17, without discussions with the DS. It's about "..splitting of administrative duties.." i.e. they agreed that the President and the Premier cannot come from the same party (effectively meaning that the Prime Minister cannot be from the Democratic Party). The rift was further increased as the minorities firstly agreed to stand aside DS, but eventually turned from them & signed all 6 Kostunica's principles, joining the coalition of DSS-NS & G17+.

Running out of potential allies (except for LDP) and frustrated that the 6th principle appeared behind their backs, DS decided to abide & sign it as well in the end - but under one condition. The Democrats proposed the 0th principle. It demands that all Populist coalition members brake all coalition with the Radicals & the Socialists that they maintain on local basis (Kostunica's men govern with the help of SRS and SPS in many, many cities, districts, etc). DS explained it as the final turn-around, effectively isolating SRS & SPS everywhere. The Populists refused. G17+ also demands that the 0th principle be altered, to include also the Serbian Strength Movement (PSS, together with whom DS governs Vojvodina for example), however this has slowed down the things.

So you see, the problems are really large. P.S. I think the deadline is 21 April, rather. --PaxEquilibrium 21:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry; 14 May is the deadline. --PaxEquilibrium 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mh, yeah, sounds like the DS found something which would hurt the DSS-NS even more than the sixth principle. Is there anyone in Serbia who's willing to cooperate with anyone else right now? Doesn't seem so... —Nightstallion (?) 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The 6th principle was DSS's proposal. --PaxEquilibrium 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant "more than the sixth principle hurt the DS". —Nightstallion (?) 15:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Vojvodinians (LSV) want don't want to cooperate with anyone, as usual. :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solution

G17 orchestrated a mediation. All three parties will meet this Friday in a grand trio negotiation (hopefully the last). They say that they accept both Kostunica's 6th principle and the Democrats' 0th principle (but altered to include PSS too); the group holds that it will try to as a mediator bring DS and DSS closer together. --PaxEquilibrium 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's hope they finally get their act together. —Nightstallion (?) 15:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Referendum

No; just a (logical?) assumption made by several Montenegrin politicians of what will occur at Fall this year [nothing's official, though; but hardly another option is possible]. --PaxEquilibrium 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's technically fine, but unless we've got a source that states (at least) that it's considered very likely that a referendumn will be held in fall, we can't really have an article yet... —Nightstallion (?) 19:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood. By the way, could you help me solve that huge bug on National Assembly of Serbia? I added a party that ran on SPS's list and can't fit it. What am I doing wrong? --PaxEquilibrium 22:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defunct federations in the template

The Whiteflower and the Sunflower were only electoral alliances, which lasted only during the electoral campaign. They were definitely not organized political forces, so I don't think that it is useful to insert them in the template. Anyway the template is getting bigger and bigger, maybe it needs a clean up. It is what we're discussing in it:Discussioni template:Partiti politici italiani. --Checco 16:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And what about the clean up? See en:Template talk:Italian political parties#Clean up?. --Checco 17:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separatism

Of course I don't see Abkhazia as an independent country (at least now, while the massive Georgian population is in exile [250,000], with the Abkhazians forming 18% of the total populace before the war; but perhaps in the future when the refugee problem is solved, a [new] referendum could be done if a compromise is not established); but as far as I know, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Kosovo (80%) and the Serbian Republic (60%+) had the respective majorities of the dominant ethnic groups before the war - the war only moved the total share of the population in favor of the dominant ethnic group. I don't see how removal of a small portion of the non-dominant ethnic group could've effected the outcome anyway (note: I don't write this with disrespect towards the exiled, as I was myself ethnically cleansed in such a conflict; also keep in mind that I am opposed to all separatist movements and that I write this only to hear your opinion on the matter). --PaxEquilibrium 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Well, I'm against South Ossetian and Transnistrian independence because I strongly believe it would only lead to a new dependence on Russia (both of them even want to join Russia, AFAIK); I'm ambivalent about the Republika Srpska, as BiH doesn't really seem to be working out as a state currently, but I'm not really in favour of fragmenting a previously multi-ethnic state in this case; and I'm in favour of Kosovar independence, anyway. —Nightstallion (?) 17:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

..as BiH doesn't really seem to be working out as a state currently.. Doesn't this go in favor? Though BH is not (read: it's not) a multi-ethnic country (Serbo-Croats, definitely one people, form over 98% of the population) - and thus it would be highly unnatural to divide B-H - but considering the consequences of the Bosnian war that forever changed the structure of the state so that it's actually two (or three) different states and most probably, Bosnia will not function, at least for a long time more - the problem lies in the fact that BH has absolutely no historical statehood and so except a sense of all people being citizens of a country which includes quite a heterogenous structure of dialects and sub-groups of the Serbo-Croat people, there is absolutely nothing that keeps the people together (and unlike Kosovo, which is partially dominated by Albanians, no ethnic group is dominant in BH). Problem lies in the fact that both Bosnia would be hihgly unnatural (and unimaginable) if its 3 "peoples" live separate - and it's highly incredible to imagine Bosnia separate from a common state with Serbia (and Montenegro?) and Croatia (and sadly - it is); this is the main cause why the situation in Bosnia is impossible (now) to fix, without joining into a state union with Croatia and Serbia/Montenegro (keep also on mind that that's not gonna happen). --PaxEquilibrium 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter Issue X - March 2007
Project news We are on the cusp of having 9000 novel and other narrative prose articles tagged as part of the project. With this volume of articles, we need all the editorial help we can get. Now there are three Task Forces ("Short story", "Science Fiction" & "Crime") - see below Member news The project has currently 214 members, 8 joined & 1 leavers since the last newsletter at the start of February 2007 Other news The Assessment department has managed to assess (in some form) nearly all the main articles. The emphasis will now change to identifying needed article improvement, however keeping a watch on newly tagged articles with a view to properly assess those. A new Peer review department has kicked off with one of my early articles as a starting point. Please do give it a look, start reviewing and suggest other articles that you believe could benefit from another pair of eyes. The Children and Young Adult Literature portal was created by User:KGV, go take a look. Auto list news Currently stalled - if anyone has the means to help out here with re-generation of these list - please do! Current debates The End of Fair Use? is notification of a serious debate going on across WikiPedia. Another possible problem hasn't really got going as a debate but maybe should have. It highlights a need to put in content to articles that asserts "notability" and gives proper referencing to articles. Task Forces Short story task force is about short stories and short story collections. Crime task force is about Crime, Detective & Mystery novels, novellas, novelettes & short stories. Science fiction task force is about Science fiction novels, novellas, novelettes & short stories. Project volunteers Volunteers needed - if any members feel able to take on project tasks such as leading Task Forces, editing this Newsletter, monitoring and maintaining the Announcements template, heading up Outreach activity, managing Collaboration or Assessment activity or anything else you believe needs special attention, please let us know.	From the Members Welcome to the tenth issue of the Novels WikiProject's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk), Initiating Editor Collaboration of the Month This months Collaboration has been selected by popular vote and it is Adam Bede. Newsletter challenge Last months A Taste for Death challenge was met by the user Barbara Osgood (talk • contribs) with a brief stub .... again this could still handle some development. The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Ivan Turgenev's - On the Eve.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 02:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945

Who authorised you to change the name to 1940-1945 occupation of Latvia? There is was no discussion on the talk page regarding this move. The article is meant to be locked and is subject to an Arbitration proceeding. Martintg 08:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Years are put in the front, not in the back. It was an entirely uncontroversial move and not related to the Arbitration issue. —Nightstallion (?) 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I am discussing this with you is an indicator that the move is controversial. I draw your attention to the naming convention guidlines in regard to event dates: "If a time indicator is used in the title of an article on an event that doesn't recur at regular intervals (or didn't recur at all) there's no "standard format" for the representation of the time indicator". Please move the article back to the original title. Martintg 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The de facto standard for all events not occuring regularily is to put the year(s) in front, just check the articles for the events in the last two years or so. I don't really see what's controversial about it, but it's not as if I really cared too much about it right now, so whatever. —Nightstallion (?) 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tensions over Kosovo

The atmosphere in Serbia is as high as it was days ago during the Bosnian genocide case. Tomorrow, for a change, whole Kostunica's government in exile will travel to Brussels, together representations from all parliamentary lists and parties and even President Boris Tadic. The wholesome administration of Serbia has decided to travel to the very last one-day negotiations between Serbia and the Kosovar Albanian negotiation team - but it seems they are well-prepared on this one. The negotiation team will reject Ahtisaari's plan because it's unconstitutional and "illegal". Russia also sent the last confirmation that it will use the Veto... the clock is ticking away... --PaxEquilibrium 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Which will not change a thing about the European Union's, the United States' and the Kosovars' opinion that conditional independence is the only way to resolve this... I'm afraid this will likely not end well... —Nightstallion (?) 09:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Albanian Kosovars' opinion (and that of the United States of America) is unlikely ever to change - but the European Union has a both NPOV non-sided & divided opinion on the matter - I guess we shall see the reactions after today.

Note: I know that you innocently mean majority when you say "Kosovars", but just to let you know - considering the huge rift of division between Albanians and others, non-Albanian ethnic groups (especially Serbs) always feel like being discriminated { which AFAIK is happening in a way - most global media express that the negotiations are "between Kosovars and Serbia", implying that either Kosovo is an ethnically pure Albanian-populated territory, or that the other peoples "do not belong" in Kosovo and should simply be exiled (those are most reactions that come from Kosovar Serb politicians). Cheers.

P.S. It seems that the Serbian political leadership is proposing a federalization of Serbia (two entities: proper Serbia and Kosovo). --PaxEquilibrium 11:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mh, aye, sorry for that; I *did* mean "Kosovar Albanians". And while federalisation by itself would have been a nice compromise, all Kosovar Albanians I've asked have exhibited the same reaction: Yes, it would have been a nice compromise, but Serbia had the chance to propose this compromise in 1999 and before that; now it's too late.

We'll see. —Nightstallion (?) 12:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no necessity to be apologize, just like I said. :D --PaxEquilibrium 19:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegro

President Filip Vujanović announced party purges during of all administration officials in Montenegro his stay in Zagreb; this has caused a lot of controversy, as the liberal opposition has been bringing up various laws of dealing with the old persons of the 1990s, and the Democratic Party of Socialists has refused all acts planning to protect its leaders. Filip has however given his international word to Croatia; this means that Filip will have to banish some of the most popular charismatic people of Montenegro that enjoy a lot of support like Svetozar Marović (Montenegro's "light version" Vojislav Seselj) and the hardest thing of all, he will have to face the undisputed DPS leader and the overlord of Montenegro himself - Milo Đukanović (the Big Dude). DPS MNE MPs have been arguing about this for long. Due to the fact that new elections (especially Presidential) are already underway, I think that Filip is finally releasing himself from Milo's grip and that this year of 2007, exactly ten years after a similar thing, we'll have a strong deja vu (in the legendary 1997-1998 presidential elections the people of the Republic of Montenegro chose between two factions within DPS - the West and Milosevic). If Filip doesn't back off (he is a very weak politician, that's why Milo grew him as his puppet in the first place), this is gonna happen again.

Plus, Filip will have to deal with DPS' close ally: the Social Democratic Party (Ranko Krivokapić, officer from the Siege of Dubrovnik, is the parliament's speaker). --PaxEquilibrium 23:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like good news to me, then... —Nightstallion (?) 11:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elections in Croatia

Croatian parliamentary election, 2007 is now "in".

Anyone seems sympathetic to ya? --PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - you can read here about not allowing the montenegrins in Serbia to vote (BBC). --PaxEquilibrium 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly none of the rightist parties. I suppose I'm in favour of the Social Democrats, the Liberals, and the Social Liberals, but I don't know too much about Croatian politics yet, I'm afraid. What would you say? (How do you mean "in", BTW? Have election campaigns already started?) —Nightstallion (?) 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Social Democratic Party (anti-Tudjman, anti-nationalist and most of all, [the only major party that] doesn't have war criminals on its list), definitely. It's the only party in ex Yugoslavia that's a major successor to the Communist League. SDP governed Croatia after the death of Franjo Tudjman; its far too social-democratic acts have pushed the nationalist opposition in a better place (and besides, the government always loses support in free countries [all except Montenegro]); its cooperation with the ICTY and pro-western attitude brought agitation & Tudjman's-heritage HDZ back to power (that would just like Karadzic's SDS would return some day to power in the Serbian Republic); gladly, they will lose these elections (all polls say) and a Social/Liberal coalition government will be formed (the period of HDZ's rule was an age of somewhat discrimination of the minorities, especially the significant Serbian one).

The Election throttle is already long underway. :) --PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the government *always* loses support; good governance has proven to be rewarded occasionally, too. Apart from that, yeah, what you told seems to align with what I know, so I know I'm supporting the right ones with the Social Democrats. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

The reason why SRS "leads" ("" because its only de facto and not de jure) is because it feels betrayed by the international community. For example, the main image in Serbia is that FRY was bombed in 1999 to make Kosovo independent, whilst the International Community back then promised that Kosovo will remain in the country (and no one whatsoever supported an independent Kosovo except Albania and the United States). Considering that Serbia did nothing [wrong] from then to presence, and that AFAIK Serbs, Roms and other minorities were subjected to brutal discrimination, most especially the 2004 March pogrom in which anti-Serb riots burned numerous houses and cultural heritage from the Middle Ages (and expelled all refugees that returned ever since 1999, including some more people). Whats more - under international encouragements, Belgrade forced the Kosovar Serbs and others to participate in the Kosovar elections, which they boycotted because they considered illegal. Serbs did enter the Transitional Parliament - but in the end nothing improved (one was even assassinated). What is even more disappointing (to the Serbian politicians in Belgrade) is that the Transitional Government in Pristina until then known as "Albanian" became "multi-ethnic Kosovar" and the only role that the Serbs and (other) minorities had in the parliament was/is a simple show-off for the international community how nice a job the government's doing and how the "minorities are fully integrated" (Washington said that the Kosovan Albanians will gain independence, but only if they show they are worth it) - and at those times some minorities were even at cases subjected to ethnic cleansing.

In the end, this very democratic government claims that "..the International Community was either afraid of Milosevic or simply did not have the honor to say the truth in 1999 that Kosovo will become independent, and decided to leave it to the us when we come to power after Milosevic's fall.." What do you think of this?

P.S. This is the reason why many start to think Milosevic was the only person who could keep Kosovo in Serbia, and choose to vote for the Serb Radicals.

P.P.S. If Kosovo becomes independent, I will stake at 99,99% that the Serbian Radical Party will cease power in Serbia (it already threatens with a coup d'etat). --PaxEquilibrium 20:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What did you mean with your PPS? That the Radicals will come to power? Well, frankly, a shock like that might help to teach the Serbian population that voting for the Radicals is just as good as throwing their vote away... —Nightstallion (?) 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The Radicals were already in power before in 1992-1993 & 1998-2000 when they won two hundreds of thousands (or a million in the latter's case) votes. As strange as it may seem, the municipalities in which the Radicals are in power, they have proven to be formidable and their strength has (locally) increased. If the radicals build a government, they will keep it by all means necessary just like Milosevic (I stake that the Radicals would lose power some time around 2014, or probably even later, if they manage to cease it). Also, I did not mention elections - by a coup d'etat (for which they are preparing the moment Kosovo [if] becomes independent). --PaxEquilibrium 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? That's even worse than I thought. Do you really think a coup d'état will be successful, though? —Nightstallion (?) 05:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Army, the police or any other armed unit is not behind them. Statistically, it's impossible - but they can amass thousands of ordinary citizens and force them to do their bidding, no matter what that is - this is the Balkans, so, we must be prepared to expect the unexpectable. --PaxEquilibrium 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. I still hope for the best. —Nightstallion (?) 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't express your opinion on Serbian politicians' POV on Kosovo? --PaxEquilibrium 16:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I still believe the LDP has the only valid course of action planned out -- grudgingly accept Kosovo's independence (ensuring, of course, utmost protection for all minorities living in Kosovo), but trying to secure as many possible advantages for accepting it as possible. Everything else is pure daydreaming, Russia will likely abstain in the UNSC. —Nightstallion (?) 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to influence/alter your opinion (I already know it) - I want to hear your opinion on Serbian political elite's opinion. --PaxEquilibrium 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that wasn't what I intended, but I simply do not know enough about the differentiated viewpoints of the different Serbian politicians to give a succinct summary of my opinion of their opinion, sorry. —Nightstallion (?) 22:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that's I wrote it in full detail (their viewpoints) several rows up. :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the single political opinion that all Serbian politicians agree on? I assume you mean the paragraph starting with The reason why SRS "leads"? —Nightstallion (?) 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of Serbia's citizen population (generalization, but all polls say), the entire Executive branch (Government) including the Republic's President and all current relevant politicians [from the {Social} Democrats to the Radicals, from the Royalists to the Populists and from the minorities to the Socialists] (except for LSV); and partially LDP and me all share that opinion (roughly, but in general, yeah). Serbian politicians are never united, so sure; SPS & SRS have a totally another theory of a silly "conspiracy", but in practice do not go too far from it. --PaxEquilibrium 12:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part 2

In addition to that, the ruling democratic political elite in Serbia considers that the International mediators planned for Kosovo to become independent already in 1999, but decided to tell the truth after the fall of Milosevic, when Serbia got greatly weakened without any sort of organized or strong political foothold in Belgrade, with the intention of more easily realizing that. That (and that alone) is the sole reason of the huge Euro/Atlantic-skepticism (that gives the Serb Radicals strength). What's more, the authorities in Pristina have violated the decision of the International Community, "in disrespect" (as Kostunica says) to the United Nations, unfulfilling the 1244 Resolution for the solution of the status of Kosovo, to which they appeal(ed) as the most horrific thing in Kosovo after Milosevic, while in 1999 they greeted with great ease and welcomed the resolution. In the same case, the United Nations (Mission in Kosovo) failed to implement its own aims, or to (in)directly convince the Pristina authorities to do so. It is thus to Belgrade's opinion that there is no warranty (except the future European Union's mission in Kosovo, which will perhaps do a better job than the UN) that Pristina will obey Martti Ahtisaari's proposal for Kosovo's solution, no matter what it says. The Kosovar Albanian political leadership greets the plan now, but Belgrade is convinced that they will (again) criticize it after Kosovo becomes independent, not fulfilling the points they do not like. The Serbian (Yugoslavian) authorities have signed the Kumanovo Treaty that ended the unrest in Kosovo - however the Albanian side did not fulfill most of the points of the treaty, and is today dismissing it. Although I am not fond of Serbian politicians' skepticism & "isolationist tendencies", I do understand why precisely they do not trust the International mediation & the Albanian transitional government in Pristina.

The greatest arguments are that (in Serbian political analists' views) the "fairy tale" proposed by Ahtisaari's document is impossible to realize & has no legal basis anywhere else in the world and that the things offered to the Kosovar Serbs are things that no sane society is able to realize [the "rights" offered to the Serbs would give them a huge influence in the political life in Kosovo] (and especially the one that refused realization after agreeing to a similar thing before).

P.S. Aside from this, the fact that Sarajevo pushes hard to abolish the Serbian Republic and affirm a unitary Bosnia and Herzegovina in contrary to all the numerous acts (including the constitution), most notably the 1995 Dayton Accords, and the fact that some sympathy has arrived regarding this issue from the West, greatly contribute to the "anger" and skepticism of Serbia's citizens (how to trust those who don't respect the things they stand for, most especially the things that they originally made themselves in the first place?). Montenegro's (slightly) controversial secession has (weirdly, I'd expect more) not pushed the situation a lot in favor of the Irredentist Bloc, but independence of Kosovo is exactly what's sufficient to push the scale over the edge, and Tomislav Nikolić might be Premier soon. --PaxEquilibrium 13:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think the political and social situation's that bad in Serbia right now? —Nightstallion (?) 15:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how you think this is so shockingly bad (but that's perhaps because that's how it's been for over almost two decades, so I guess it has "grown to my heart" so it doesn't shock me), but I can guarantee that every single word in this section (Kosovo) is not something that I just think; it really does represent the reality. Why do You not comment? :)) --PaxEquilibrium 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I think irredentism and revisionism at this scale and to this degree is shocking -- I thought Haider's second place in Austria was the worst of Europe's democracies... I don't comment because I am, quite frankly, speechless, if the situation is indeed as close to escalating as you put it... —Nightstallion (?) 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there is always the possibility that the result does not escalate in Kosovo's independence and that this new (unarguably the best government Serbia has ever had) government solves the huge economic problems Serbia faces, which would probably the very last undoing of the Radicals. I didn't ask your opinion on the whole situation in Serbia (which is horrible, but that's nothing shocking nor new [so neither should You be wondered]), but on your opinion regarding Tadic+Kostunica+practically everybody else's POV on Kosovo (do You think their claims are founding, do you think they're ranting, do you think they're right, etc.). --PaxEquilibrium 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd certainly hope for that... Regarding the Kosovo situation: It is, of course, true that international law would dictate that a partition against a state's wish is not legal, and that Serbia's politicans are therefore right in this point. However, the special situation of Kosovo and its main inhabitants, including the war, does, of course, present a unique proposition... Frankly, I'd consider a State Union of Serbia and Kosovo along the lines of the late Serbian-Montenegrin a viable compromise (although it would have to include the possibility for a partition referendum in five or ten years or so). I both understand the Kosovar Albanians when they reject this possibility as being "too little too late", and also the Serbians when they (correctly) claim that this forced partition de iure violates Serbia's rights... It's a difficult situation, that much is certain, and much harsh words could be avoided if the will for compromise were larger on both sides. I certainly wouldn't blame the Serbian politicians for trying to defend their country's territorial integrity, though I'd tend to sympathise with the Kosovar Albanian point of view in this specific situation (i.e. if the only two options are "remain a subordinate part of Serbia" or "become independent"). —Nightstallion (?) 13:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Such a state union is Belgrade exactly proposing, only it does not give any potential right for secession in the future (same rights as Serbia, but part of Serbian sovereignty)... the terrible feeling is that when you that if Kosovo secedes (likely to happen) the Serbian Republic will too, bringing a whole new page of instability to the Balkans and there's nothing you can do... sigh. --PaxEquilibrium 14:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europarty spat

Here's something of potential interest. Looks like the EPP is taking the stance that the MER is indeed a rival party and cross-membership is inherently treasonous. The Tom 04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that. Will be very interesting... —Nightstallion (?) 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results table

Could you add your source for the results you posted on Mauritanian presidential election, 2007? The person who first added the table used sources that only gave results for the top candidates, but now that you've expanded it we need a source that covers everything in the table. Everyking 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to do that. Did it now. —Nightstallion (?) 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematician-3 Userbox display issue

A while ago, I was unsatisfied with the display of the Template:User mathematician-3 userbox on my system. Here's how it looked: [1]. Apparently, when Wikipedia user preferences call for presenting math expressions in HTML when possible, the confined space of a userbox icon cell causes line-breaks in the resulting spans of text, leading to this really messed up appearance. So I created an image file, of standard userbox icon size (45x45 pixels), to display the expression correctly and compactly regardless of viewer preferences. I then changed the userbox template to use this image.

However, you have undone this change, claiming the old way was neater. While I can see how the old way might be preferable due to semantics, I assert that the result is too unpredictable, and often too bulky, for a userbox. Considering the previous fiddling with the code by other editors, it seems I'm not the only one to observe this problem.

I could easily change it back myself, but rather than get into my first edit war, I would prefer to create an opportunity for one of us to change the other's mind. Vid the Kid (t/c) Does this font make me look fat? 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't you simply take an image of how the thing *should* look, that is, replace the image you want to have there with an image of the formula in LaTeX? That'd be fine with me. —Nightstallion (?) 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Party (Italy)

I've got interesting news for you. In my region, Veneto, the Democrats of the Left and Democracy is Freedom – Daisy, have formed a joint group in the Regional Council and they called it Olive Tree – Venetian Democratic Party (L'Ulivo – Partito Democratico Veneto). For now it is only a joint group, as in the Italian Parliament we have the Olive Tree joint group, and the parties continue to have different leaderships in the Region, but it is the first time that the words Partito Democratico are used officially in Italy. See [2]. --Checco 10:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good news! :) —Nightstallion (?) 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons: Picture requests

Hi, I just wanted to make sure, you see this. Regards, --Flominator 10:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, very nice of you to do this. :) —Nightstallion (?) 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] motion to close mediation

hello there,

there was a mediation offer quite a while ago concerning the issue of Trentino-South Tyrol. I am happy to announce that the issue has been discussed, voted upon and settled. However the mediation offer still needs to be officially closed. Please take a minute to visit the page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Trentino-South Tyrol and put your signature at the bottom if you agree with the decision, thank you. sincerely Gryffindor 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• A very important note. This mediation offer concerned the greater overall naming convention to use in this region, not just the name of the region itself. We came up with a very good compromise for the regional name itself. I for one am still looking forward for Lar to help us out. Taalo 21:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, accepted the result. —Nightstallion (?) 13:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to 2007 National People's Congress

Hi. I saw this edit of yours. It's probably an instance where the section heading should be capitalized, and there seems to have been an errant character there. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The errant character was my fault, yeah, but I'm fairly certain that this is no proper noun... —Nightstallion (?) 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News

[edit] Serbia

Negotiations for the Serbian government delayed to Tuesday. G17+ declared that it will give up if it fails.

And what happens if they do fail? —Nightstallion (?) 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

G17+ would support a (yet another dull) minority government without taking part in it. Serbia would lose a unique chance to have the first stable government after Milosevic released his firm grip in 2000. --PaxEquilibrium 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Very original of them. Wouldn't they have a majority with the minority parties' support? —Nightstallion (?) 18:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course. Any government (minority or not) cannot be elected without more than hald of the MPS (i.e. 126). :) --PaxEquilibrium 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed. The two lists (DSS-NS and G17+) give up and decide to leave it to the hands of President Tadic (i.e. the Democratic Party) to assemble the Government and try to collect support until deadline. G17+ suggests that Tadic holds another trio-negotiations, but threatens that this will be the last before new elections. --PaxEquilibrium 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Shit. Let me guess, the Radicals would gain in new elections? —Nightstallion (?) 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Too early to speculate about new elections, but DS (and LDP) openly call for them (just like SRS). I still think that a government will be formed. Though, Tadic and Jovanovic think that a Democrat-Liberal list might win more strength than DS just achieved (but not as much strength they have together right now if their votes/seats are compared). But I guess that the Serbian Radicals would be the only true winners (just like the Democrats and Cedomir Jovanovic's men were the only true victors of these elections) of the new elections, yeah. Also bear on mind that a lot might change; i.e. G17 wouldn't dare to stand alone again, so they would probably join Kostunica's coalition. Who knows what would happen to Ceda's coalition partners and SPO would probably choose to go back into the game (but probably not alone, since it's obvious it cannot amass enough support).

P.S. On a preliminary session of the three lists (mini-parliament), DS officially proposed Bozidar Djelic for Prime Minister. DSS immediately refused, while G17 abstained. DS also refused the 6th principle; the session ended before the 0th principle was even mentioned. --PaxEquilibrium 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

BTW, did you know that a party in LDP's club is deeply religious and even monarchist. :) How's that for an irony? :D --PaxEquilibrium 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides fighting for the restoration of the Monarchy, recognition of the Church and return to the Faith, the party's even (positively, though) nationalist (centers around Serbia's citizens who are Serbs). :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Very strange, that... —Nightstallion (?) 05:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

The 2004 March Pogrom during the anti-Serbian riots in Kosovo is marked yesterday, today and tomorrow (3 years). On this occasion a group of extremists armed with fire weapons "celebrated" the Pogrom shooting into the air in demonstrations in Kosovan Mitrovica.

Heard about that, yeah... —Nightstallion (?) 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Negotiations are over. The UN and other important international factions have started to mettle around to find a solution; the Russian ambasador left the first session of the Security Council. --PaxEquilibrium 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Very strange, that... —Nightstallion (?) 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

? Personally it was expected to me. --PaxEquilibrium 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn, meant that as an answer to another topic... Forget it. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 05:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely on 31 March the final status of Kosovo will be decided (internationally). I think there is a possibility you were right; that they won't create a government before that. --PaxEquilibrium 11:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's a fixed date now? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they'll try to do it afterwards so as to not to be blamed for it domestically. —Nightstallion (?) 19:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

---

All three lists unofficially announced new elections. They say they support the Radicals' proposal for holding general elections so that the full-scale political situation is finally clear on all political levels. --PaxEquilibrium 22:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a bad deal for all of them, actually? Who except the Radicals can hope to win votes in new elections? Presidential elections will result in a run-off between Tadic and Nikolic, which Tadic will hopefully win... Hopefully... All together, it seems like madness to me. What's the background? What do they hope to gain? —Nightstallion (?) 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the Serbian Radicals might receive more votes: but the Democrats are convinced that they themselves will probably receive stronger support, now that they are boosted by Ceda's Liberals. G17+ would probably join the DSS-NS Kostunica's coalition. I think that the Monarchists and Social Democrats might decide to return to the game, I'm not sure with whom would they run (Tadic or Kostunica).

The votes to parties who clearly can't pass the census would no longer be lost; Kostunica himself said that this will lead to the "final crystalization of the Serbian political scene". Then the political situation would be even more homogenized. Plus the Socialists would not enter the Parliament. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would be positive, yes. But do you think it will be easier for Tadic to build a government if he has to convince to Kostunica, because there's only three party groups in parliament? (Radicals, Democrats, Democrats of Serbia) —Nightstallion (?) 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply, because of the total turnout and new votes, I think the Radicals might lose seats and the Democrats-Liberals would be the only ones to gain new seats (if you didn't notice, Kostunica leads a dying out cause, and leads all allies together into failure). --PaxEquilibrium 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Mh, yeah, that's true. We'll see, I suppose... —Nightstallion (?) 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

---

B92 claims (link) that they're either

• just short of a solution to finally form a government or
• just short of announcing new elections.

Which one is it? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegro

MNE opens the first page of its EU membership (stabilization pact). --PaxEquilibrium 22:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, great. :) —Nightstallion (?) 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croatia

This is the latest news from Croatia (that's significant)... although I don't whether you'll be interested since it's not politics. A man by the name of Mario Visnjic in some Croatian beach had his balls stuck in a chair; he had to call maintenance and they came after half an hour and had to saw off the chair to release him. :X Interestingly, all media recorded this. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elections

Hi there! I was wondering if you could help me figure out a better title for an article, since you deal with elections/referenda/polls/etc quite regularly. The article in question is Elections of Kuban Governors. The problems with the current title are as follows:

1. "Kuban" is an informal name for Krasnodar Krai; that should definitely be changed;
2. Krasnodar Krai's Charter names the highest executive post of the krai as "Head of Administration (Governor)", so the "governors" portion is, too, not entirely accurate.

With that in mind, I would move the article to "elections of Heads of Administration of Krasnodar Krai", but I am not sure if that complies with naming conventions for such articles. Would you have a better suggestion, perhaps? The article itself could also use some copyediting. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, usually, we have separate articles for different elections, but if you want to have them as a single one, I'd recommend Krasnodar Krai Head of Administration elections, compare Irish presidential elections and such articles. We usually have "Region type election(s)[, year]". —Nightstallion (?) 18:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know (I wasn't sure about the format). I'll move the article accordingly. Splitting it into several does not make sense at this point of time, as the content is too limited. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Say, while I've got your attention -- what's that about the merger referendum in December 2007? The federal subjects of Russia article doesn't cite a source, unfortunately... —Nightstallion (?) 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it up tomorrow, OK?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion (?) 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I should really be watching this kind of news more, shouldn't I? :) Anyway, I removed the merger note. It looks that 90% of the Nenets AO population is currently against the merger, so a referendum will not take place. The referendum expenses were accounted for in the Arkhangelsk Oblast's 2007 budget, but NAO did not even bother. It should be noted that a situation here is unlike with other mergers—elsewhere poor autonomous okrugs are all too happy to merge with more financially stable oblasts/krais, but NAO is in fact in far better condition financially than Arkhangelsk Oblast, so no wonder its population does not want to merge. As of December of 2006, NAO transferred a sum of money (1.65 billion roubles) to Arkhangelsk Oblast's budget, and the talks about an upcoming referedum kind of stopped there. One can say they bribed their way out of this :)

I didn't find any English-language sources, but the news in Russian is available here. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint-Pierre and Miquelon

The history somehow apparently just disappeared. What's up? Lexicon (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's back. Lexicon (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War

Oh, and there's one other particular reason why I don't like LSV. Nenad Canak fought against the Croatian Army in the Croatian War of Independence (regardless if he executed innocent Croat civilians or shot at attacking Croatian soldiers, I simply think that those kind of people [war-involved] simply CANNOT be politicians). Today he says he was forced into it... --PaxEquilibrium 20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] €2 commemorative coin Treaty of Rome

You might be interested to know that somebody uploaded a whole bunch Treaty of Rome €2 commemorative coin images to en, not commons. See [3]. (the end of the diff) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (historical)

I agree with you in using "historical" instead of the date for late parties, even if sometimes there are two late parties with the same name (in that case what would be "historical"? the older one?). Anyway we need a bot to fix all the redirects in many articles: do you know a bot that could help us? --Checco 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know such a bot; if there were two historical parties, we would indeed be likely to use "Party (year–year)" as the name for both articles. —Nightstallion (?) 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway the problem is that we have a long list of double redirects, I guess. Surely can't we do nothing about it? --Checco 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a bot which could do it, but I think it's simpler if I do it by hand right now. —Nightstallion (?) 17:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. There are no double-redirects any longer, only simple redirects, which are fair enough and will be cleaned up by a bot in due time; a lot of bots are doing this task on a regular basis. —Nightstallion (?) 17:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideal Austrian fovernment

Welche Regierung würde in Österreich ideal sein?

English: What government would be ideal in Austria? --PaxEquilibrium 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd consider a government of Social Democrats and Greens ideal, possibly with some help from the Liberals (Social Liberals in Austria) and the Communists... Sadly, there's only once been such a majority, and that was when the Liberals seceded from the Freedom Party. At the last election, we almost had the change to have a left government, but as Haider's BZÖ made it into parliament... Well, I still hope. —Nightstallion (?) 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Die Kommunisten? Nicht sind sie Extremisten? --PaxEquilibrium 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. They're eurocommunists. —Nightstallion (?) 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A social liberal party in Austria? Is is possible? Tell me something... --Checco 17:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly: The Liberal Forum is pretty social liberal, at least for Austrian standards. (There's also the Social Liberals (Austria), but they're even less notable.) —Nightstallion (?) 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that LIF was a split from the Freedom Party. Was it possible that, without Haider, the Freedom Party would have become a liberal mass party? --Checco 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, very much so. While there were always strongly nationalist currents in the Freedom Party, but under Stöger, it could have become a small yet viable liberal party... Too bad history took the wrong turn there. —Nightstallion (?) 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(I put my answer also above, about independentism. --Checco 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

I saw it, but I don't really have anything else to say. —Nightstallion (?) 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's always wonderful to talk with you (and C'mon). I hold different political ideas from you two, but I think that you and C'mon are the users I like to work with most. Sorry for my terrible English (the last sentence was very terrible, I hope you understood what I wanted to say) and see next time. --Checco 17:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to hear that! I always find it very refreshing to work with you (and C mon). (And never mind your English, it's certainly far better than my rotten Italian...) —Nightstallion (?) 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MNE

Besides the Movement for Changes (PzP), there are other interesting parties in Montenegro: the Liberal Party for example (they too have their own liberals, although the poor dudes have been fighting Milosevic and Djukanovic in vain for the past 18 years ;). Besides that, there's the Socialist People's Party (SNP I personally sympathized up to the most recent election despite their numerous problems; they were the mainstream of opposition against Milo and they shifted away from the old-style scrutiny, unlike DPS). As for the "bad dudes" (except DPS) there's also People's Socialist Party (Milosevic's Socialist/Populist cult) and of course, the Serb Radicals; but you already know about these. :) There are of course other parties, like the Civic Party - but the party's evidently a loser so I didn't mention it. There is also even "Democratic Party" which wins below 1% of the votes. :))) There's even a "Green Party". Is there any other one you'd think sympathetic beside the PzP dudes personally? --PaxEquilibrium 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Greens can't be bad, and the Liberals sound okay, too... —Nightstallion (?) 23:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Greens are out (they'll probably never be a party ever again). And the Liberals are... dying out. Ever since the Liberal Alliance in Montenegro broke and became from a large group of liberal & free people fighting for the freedom against the repressionist regime to a tiny political party composed out of simple politicians, who couldn't even amass enough support (the Bosniac minority gave them enough votes to pass the census).

You don't quite like SNP because of its 1998-2001 past, right? --PaxEquilibrium 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, apart from that I don't really care for Yugo-nostalgia, either, but yeah, basically... —Nightstallion (?) 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh? All *good* parties in ex Yugoslavia are Yugo-nostalgic (the only exception is that SPS and DPS are Yugo-nostalgic too). Frankly, it's a sentiment shared by the general majority of the population (whether they think Greater Serb nationalism, Western Catholic Church-conspiracy imperialism or Croat Neo-nazism, or Slovene, Albanian or whatever nationalism; all cry for Yugoslavia with very few exceptions regardless of their theories on the country's failure). Besides, SNP's not really Yugo-nostalgic any more than DPS; it's only tied to Serbia (one of the most controversial claims of their politicians is that they promise to re-firm ties with Serbia).

Did you consider that one of their bad things or...? --PaxEquilibrium 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye; if all of the good ones are yugo-nostalgic, too, then fair enough, but then it still remains that I believe Montenegro is better off as an independent state. (They'll have two separate votes in the European Union that way, too... ;)) —Nightstallion (?) 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, isn't that kind of a problem that Europe will face in the future? Tony Blair spoke of it himself before; Serbs with two-three (depends if you count the bizarre status of Bosnia; or if RS becomes independent) and Albanians with two (if Kosovo becomes independent) shall be able to outvote the others (minority will have more strength than the majority, much more - like the case in Montenegro). --PaxEquilibrium 23:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem per se. —Nightstallion (?) 12:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Nebojša Medojević (PzP) will likely be leading Montenegro in the not imminent future. I'd best prefer him President of Montenegro, and Predrag Bulatović as Prime Minister (his not quite a fan of mine, but is more than capable for it.
Did you know that Nebojsa Medojevic is the most favored Montenegrin politician by the west (once was man of the year) and that he was the most popular man (in contrast to much dirty Milo, who himself admitted of conducting crimes and smuggling cigarettes) in Montenegro (idolized as the "true Montenegrin - neither too western nor too much eastern)? His undoing was, besides the fact that the Group for Changes became a Movement and a political party (betrayed opinions of many a man, but that's usual - politicians are never famous). When the Statehood Montenegrin status referendum question campaign was active, Nebojsa also chose to remain neutral and sided with neither bloc. Nebojsa was unsure - on one hand it seemed hardly possible that the population chooses independence - and on the other, Milo gathered a huge and powerful alliance, very strong and determined nor to lose. In basis, Nebojsa (I never understood why) was in favor of independence, but said that he would rather sell his sole to the Devil, rather than something far worse than him (you get the picture). So this went down on his reputation. That's why his party won a meager 11 seats of 81 of its first run-off.
In addition to that, Medovic's stand in opposition is not helpful. He is now close with the entire opposition, the Serbs, the Socialists/Populists, everyone - trying to reunite the opposition in an effort to finally bring down Milo's regime. His close associations with politicians of various ideologies, and his frequent stance in defense of the "jeopardized" Serb population (though quite justified, only Montenegrins and two Albanians form the government, and the two peoples form less than half of the Montenegrin population, besides the Serbs enjoy absolutely no rights the other minorities have, and their factual existence is denied) is also bringing down on him.

I personally think that he has betrayed his utmost democratic views (heck, if he stood by his aims during the independence referendum, why can't he stand now?). What do you think? --PaxEquilibrium 23:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Frankly, I'm not sure... —Nightstallion (?) 12:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin

Hi Nightstallion, I hope you won't mind if I make a (very) random request of you: you were the only reasonably familiar name in the "Advanced Latin" category, and I'm looking for someone to translate a very simple phrase for me.

The motto of the Apollo programme was "Ex luna, scientia" - "From the moon, knowledge"; I'd like to know how to say "From the moon, expensive cheese" - it's a tongue-in-cheek tagline that I'd like to append discretely to the research project which has driven me half-crazy over the past 4 months. Unfortunately my knowledge of Latin grammar is zero and if I'm going to put it in somewhere, it's got to be right! Any chance you might help me out? Cheers, --YFB ¿ 02:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Same request for me. I've asked it to several latin speaking Wikipedists, but nobody dared to answer me: Can you translate this for me, please? Švitrigaila 13:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ex luna, caseus carus; regarding the longer text I'm afraid it's rather hard to read... Is there a transcription around somewhere? —Nightstallion (?) 14:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Nightstallion! One good turn begets another - I've had a look for a transcription of the tomb without success (including on JSTOR), so I had a go at doing one myself. Some of the spacing is almost certainly wrong, it's very hard to make out, but hopefully you'll be able to piece something together:

HIC VEM CLAVDIT HVMVS OCVLIS VULTVO : DECORVM

PARA FVIT QVINTVS NOMINE GREGORIVS

AMTE TAMEN BRVNO FRANCO RVMREGIA PROLES

F?LIVS OTTONIS DEGENITRICE IVDITH

L?NGVA TEVTONICVS VUAN GIA DOCTVS IN VRBE

?? DIVVENIS CATHEDRAM SEDIT APOSTOLICAM

AD BINO SANNOS ET MEN SESCIRCITER OCTO

TERSE NOS E EBRVOCON NVMERANT E DIES

PAV PERIBVS DIVES PERSINGVLA SABBATAVESTES

DIVISITNVM E RO CAVTVS APOSTOLICO

VSVS FRANCISCA VVLGARIET VOCE LATINA

INSTITVIT POPVLOS E LOQ VIOTRI PLICI

TERTIVS OTTOS I BI PETRI COMMISITO VILE

COGNATIS MANIBVS VNCTVS IN IMPERIVM

EX VITET POST QVAM TERRENAE V INCVLA CARNIS

A E Q VIVO CIDEX TRO SVBSTITVIT LATERI

DISCES ??? XII KAL?MART —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yummifruitbat (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Rahmon(ov)

Hi. Nothing important today, but just to show you a post I made here. I don't need help, but I'm stupidly proud to show my highly intellectual spirit's work. ;o) Švitrigaila 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Why did you reiserted the image? It is not updated... --Checco 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

... yes it is, which part do you consider to be out of date? —Nightstallion (?) 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Many states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri, etc.) in which the proposal failed to be introduced are in yellow, meaning "introduced"; many others are also dressed in yellow, despite the fact that the proposal passed only in one chamber or that the governor has not yet signed the law. --Checco 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're understanding it correctly: "introduced" means that the law has been formally proposed, not that it has been passed. —Nightstallion (?) 22:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Anyway it would be better an image underlining where the proposal was passed and where it failed to be passed. --Checco 11:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, as I so often say: my Italian is certainly worse than your English... I think the map is fine as it is, as it correctly shows the status of the bills in the current session. —Nightstallion (?) 11:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Developments

It appears that the original allegations were all this time true. They were only deceiving the people to prolong the negotiations and the situation (because of Kosovo). Kostunica himself unofficially said that the mandate is no longer in President Tadic's control, but that he gave it to him already. Also, Kostunica has started forming a Cabinet.

This is slightly controversial, as the Democrats deny this, while Boris Tadic refused to comment.

The controversial announcement of the Radicals that they're preparing for a war to *save* Kosovo is even more stirring up the situation. --PaxEquilibrium 23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So... does this mean there'll be a government, or that there'll be early elections, or that there'll be an even more substantial crisis? —Nightstallion (?) 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no and yes.

It also appears that the speculative rumors about all three lists giving up from their primary demands (DS-Presidency, DSS-Police, G17-Finances) as a key factor in forming a joint contract are really just false speculations by non-notable tabloids. --PaxEquilibrium 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Did you know there were practically never held regular elections in Serbia? --PaxEquilibrium 23:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

With "regular" you mean "waiting the full four years"? —Nightstallion (?) 12:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. --PaxEquilibrium 14:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kinshasa battle

I was thinking about creating an article for the resent fighting in Kinshasa between the military and Jean-Pierre Bemba's militia. The problem is I have no idea what to call the article. If I give it a name like the "Battle of Kinshasa" or something, would I have to use a battle infobox? This isn't realy part of a war. I was wondering what you think the name should be (or even if there should be an article). – Zntrip 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There should be an article; Battle of Kinshasa sounds fine to me, after all, it's part of the aftermath of the Congolese Civil War... —Nightstallion (?) 12:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegrin Constitution

Hard to agree on; the government violated the Law & Constitutional by illegally drafting a Law for the Constitution's assertion; Milo's domination within the Parliament prevents officially declaring it illegal.

• Democratic Party of Socialists - demands a Hard Constitution (nearly impossible to change); demands that it the territorial sovereignty is guaranteed as unchangeable in the Constitution under any circumstances (especially that borders & territory cannot be changed nor could Montenegro join any other country in any political union); demands that Montenegrin language be implanted as official language of the Republic of Montenegro, but might be willing to include also others (Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian); asked that Montenegro becomes a nation-state of the Montenegrins, but will give up in favor of an ambiguous civic-state; suggested that the uncanonical Montenegrin Orthodox Church be mentioned in the constitution, but gave up; demands that changes of government type be rendered impossible by the Constitution; demands a Judicial branch that is totally dependent on the government; doesn't want general elections immediately after the Constitution's proclamation; doesn't want a referendum, but will strongly endorse it if the opposition refuses its personal Constitution proposal; attains a no tolerance policy in negotiations with the opposition

• Movement for Changes - opposes referendum at all costs and demands compromise; accepts the planting of Montenegrin as official language, but considers impossible without Serbian as official too; thinks that the Church should be separate from the state, but if necessary will allow any mention (MOC or SOC Orthodox, but along with Roman Catholic and Islamic); considers that Montenegro should be a free civic-state non-nationally defined; if referendum is held, demands general elections; demands an independent Judicial branch of the government; demands regulations of completely jeopardized national minorities in the new Constitution (which would effectively stop this discrimination by sole one ethnic group nationalists forming governments aside from other mistreatments)

• The Serb parties (under the Serbian People's Party) demand that the Serbian language be left as the sole official language; demand that Montenegro be declared the nation-state of the Montenegrin and the Serbian people (with special regulations to re-balance the Montenegrin "domination scale"); demand the officialization of the Serbian Orthodox Church; request a Hard constitution and stand for a referendum; request for possibilities of closer ties with Serbia on local basis

• Socialist People's Party: referendum; general elections afterwards; weak constitution; open possibilities of any state change whatsoever); Serbian language official but also Montenegrin if must be (open to any other option); special links to Serbia; non-national free civic-state (but Montenegrins/Serbs if must be); independent courts; separate Church from the state; minority rights a priority (especially Serb rights); constitutional compromise; European integration at steady pace

• Social Democrat Party: separate Church from the state (no mention); no nationalities (if Montenegrin nation-state non-favorable); compromise; originally Montenegrin language but will support Serbian also, party suggests unification as Serbo-Montenegrin language or South Slavic as compromise; no referendum (but yes if must be); not lenient at giving in to the opposition; for other points refer to DPS's demands

• People's Party: Serbian language prefers, but holds that no language should be official (to be left to special acts made by linguists); non-nation state as compromise; no Church as compromise; independent Courts; compromise; no referendum if can be avoided; general elections afterwards; Serb rights; links to Serbia; moderate Constitution; points to disable ruling authoritarianism

• Liberal Party: referendum; Montenegrin language (but OK if other[s] really must be); originally proposed "Montenegrin state", but now ambiguous; general elections; no compromise; guarantees of state independence; independent courts

The other parties have got divided constitutional opinions, especially the three Albanian parties (either fully with DPS, or with SNP to an extent); they also stand for Albanian minority rights. The Serbian Radical Party (just like the People's Socialist Party and the Democratic Party of Unity) are fully with the Serbs (SNS). The Bosniac Party demands that discrimination against Muslims (especially Slavic) must be stopped through granting constitutional rights and official recognition. I think that the Croatian Civic Initiative should stand Croatian minority rights, but it's fully overshadowed by DPS. The Democratic Serbian Party supports: civic-state, but both Montenegrin and Serbian, no Church, in all other cases agreeing with DPS.

The other "outer players" (Civic, Green and Democratic parties, the Communists, etc...) have yet to voice their own opinions (although I do not think they'll matter; perhaps only in the case of a referendum). --PaxEquilibrium 22:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look as if there's much leeway for compromise, is there? —Nightstallion (?) 14:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My guessing is that Milo will try to impose his version of the Constitution (so far only the Serbian parties gave their constitution proposal and strictly push it). It is very likely that DPS will succeed. --PaxEquilibrium 15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

With or without a referendum? —Nightstallion (?) 15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo will impose his Constitution, and the Opposition will never accept such an act - thus, yeah, I think there will be a referendum (there's little room for anything else).

BTW, how do you like the Montenegrin independence referendum, 2006 article? --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite good. —Nightstallion (?) 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thnx. :) Any article which you contributed to greater extent? --PaxEquilibrium 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Four I'm really pround of: List of European Union member states by accession, List of European Union member states by political system, Monarchies in the European Union and €2 commemorative coins. —Nightstallion (?) 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I especially like the 2nd and the 3rd. BTW I've started Montenegrin independence referendum, 1992; I could use a hand. --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BTW,

...if You ever wondered how would look a vast alliance in Montenegro of pure evil, criminals by criminal and the worst political scumbag, take a look at this. :X --PaxEquilibrium 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. Blergh. —Nightstallion (?) 14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serbia, Kosovo

I'm sorry; I missed your post. There is a fixed date for the Contact Group (it's 28 March 2007). BTW, today Ahtisaari gave his final status proposal to the United Nations. However the session date of the Security Council is not known.

There have been numerous rumors by stupid tabloids in Serbia, never has a government construction lasted for this long. Apparently, Kostunica is having second thoughts on still wanting to be Prime Minister (not enough support), while already the President gave him the mandate. Also DSS and SRS have attempted (allegedly) a negotiation, but the Serb Radicals have proven to be far more demanding than the Democrats. The twists of controversy and tensions are driving the entire social life in Serbia to (note: overreacting a bit here) the range of total madness, much more than the actual Kosovo problem...I think I won't pass any of the stupidities anymore before the next grand trio (and very last) negotiation (DS, DSS-NS and G17+)...*sigh* Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 15:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed group for the decision to be made, or for the next meeting of the CG? —Nightstallion (?) 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For the meeting of the CG. --PaxEquilibrium 17:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. —Nightstallion (?) 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your notes

See User talk:Nightstallion/notes. --PaxEquilibrium 10:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Listing the names of the EU institutions...

...in the official languages of the EU in Languages of the European Union is absolutely redundant. Maybe there is a place for this kind of information in the article of its institution - if it is necessary to mention something like that somewhere. I will remove the tables from this article if it is OK. Please, answer at the talk page of the article. --Michkalas 12:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

shrugs Let's make it a separate article, then. —Nightstallion (?) 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replies

The parliamentary election was repeated on locations across Serbia on 8 February. So if you already say fixed dates like 21 January, you also have to add this one, right?

Mh. I think we don't usually consider judicial recounts and repeats of elections as being separate election dates, compare the Albanian elections (where there regularily are reruns in some districts). —Nightstallion (?) 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a fixed date for the Security Council regarding Kosovo's status. It is 3 April.

Thanks, I noticed. :) —Nightstallion (?) 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Serbian government

The President made a draft of the whole new government (with Kostunica Prime Minister); he said that's his final offer and just sent it to the Premier in resignation (it seems unacceptable to New Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium 09:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what comes of it... —Nightstallion (?) 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I presented to you the tragedy in this very well. You see, right before elections were being held the regime in office brought the "Law on temporary funding budget for the year of 2007". Everyone agreed that a government will be formed by the end of March, so because of various other economic reasons, March the 31st was marked as the deadline. For the past month G17+ has been trying to force the other two lists to continue the Session of the National Assembly to pass a preliminary act on lengthening the budget; but such a thing requires the President of the Assembly to be elected - and the old controversy still stands: DS wants the Presidential seat and Kostunica's coalition wants to first agree on the wholesome split of administration. For you see, if 31 March passes without the continued session of the Parliament, the Republic of Serbia will be in the greatest economic crisis ever since the sanctions. All funding of everything in complete that depends on the government will stop. Now if such a thing happens, there is only one option: that Kostunica's government in resignation takes matters into own hands, seriously violating numerous Laws, not to mention the Constitution!. And beside that, we all know how rigorously Vojislav practices Law, I think he'd rather let Anarchy come than brake law... --PaxEquilibrium 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that's even worse then... —Nightstallion (?) 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem's solved now. The government illegally lengthened the temporary budget to June 31, violating article 92 of the Constitution of Serbia and three separate high-ranking Laws (among other things)...this gets better and better for Kostunica by day...uh. --PaxEquilibrium 18:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. sighs —Nightstallion (?) 18:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The funniest thing of them all is that the High (Constitutional) Court judged that the Government in resignation has violated Law and filed a suit against it. According to it, the government may now be considered illegal.

Frankly, I think they're all acting like dumb idiots. --PaxEquilibrium 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same job as usual

Hi,

It has been a long long time since the last time I asked you something. Maybe two days, or even more... This time it's about changing the names of Əbülfəz Elçibəy, Yaşar Əliyev and Ayaz Mütəllibov. Vote as you want, or say your opinion, or do nothing. Švitrigaila 15:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Tomislav Nikolic

That'd be nice, but I sincerely doubt it. If Russia abstains (and it's likely that it will), the statement will just fall into thin air and forever disappear.

Besides, he already threatened to seize power in Serbia by force if Kosovo becomes independent. I have no idea how he plans to impose himself as the most powerful man in Serbia and withdraw from political life at the same time.

You just simply cannot imagine the very quantity of lies his mouth spat and You probably never will. It's just a corrupt plan (usual) to through deceit try to unite Serbian people under his hand.

Besides, Aleksandar Vucic or whomever else will take his place anyway...they're like the undead, you kill one and another will just pop in to the previous' place and the more You fight them, the stronger they get. --PaxEquilibrium 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, true enough. Still, I found it an interesting possibility to entertain at least theoretically. :) —Nightstallion (?) 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Me again

You know, sometimes it feels like I'm being followed....

No, but seriously, keep up the good work - it will be a sad day when I see you haven't corrected my election article typos within a couple of hours of me writing them ;) Number 57 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's not a problem for you that I keep checking up on your contributions? It's just a way for me to keep track of the good work you do, and especially of new election articles. :) —Nightstallion (?) 10:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not a problem at all. Number 57 10:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And a question

I notice that we have a bit of inconsistency for elections:

1. General elections - when do these occur? My understanding is that in a parliamentary system, a general election is one where the legislature is up for election (though it must be both houses in a bicameral system where the upper house is also elected), whilst in a Presidential system it is when the presidential and legislative elections are held at the same time. Thus shouldn't parliamentary elections in countries where presidents are not directly elected all be classed as "general elections" (i.e. in Israel or Suriname)?
2. Secondly, we have been producing articles entitled legislative elections and parliamentary elections. Are they not the same thing? If so, perhaps we should agree on one of the two and standardise it. Not sure why, but I prefer parliamentary (I guess it is simpler language than legislative).

Thoughts? Number 57 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think in both of these cases we also need to take into account the special history of the country in question; if it's entirely uncommon to refer to an election as "parliamentary" in, say, Jamaica, because they're usually called "legislative" there, we shouldn't impose this unto them. The same thing goes for general elections, I'd say. —Nightstallion (?) 10:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, ok. The problem is that I'm not familiar with what they call it in most countries! And in Israel they just call it Knesset elections - would that mean the articles should be moved to "Israeli Knesset election, 1951" etc.? Anyway, I guess I'll just keep making it up as I go along, and then someone with better local knowledge can fix it later! Number 57 10:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XIII - March 2007
Project news The project's scope has been updated to include depictions of military history in cultural media. The Spanish military history task force has been created. The project now has a publication department, which will work on producing collections of military history articles for offline publication. There is now a list of military-related deletion nominations available. Two new sets of guidelines have been introduced: Guidelines for classifying military conflicts and categorizing campaigns Expanded guidelines for citation styles and requesting citations Two new templates are now available: {{Infobox National Military}}, a primary infobox for use on articles about an entire nation's military establishment. {{Service record}}, an auxiliary infobox for documenting a military unit's or ship's service history. The old requested articles page and the automation department have been discontinued.	Current proposals and discussions The new project award structure is nearing completion; a draft currently is up for comment. A proposal for replacing the project's collaboration with a contest scheme is being discussed. Sign-ups for several potential task forces are open; all interested members are encouraged to list themselves! An automated system for locating new articles is currently being tested.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centre better than center

Dear Nightstallion, I expouse you a problem. There is an article named Christian Democratic Center about the precursor of the Union of Christian and Centre Democrats. I wanted to change the name into Christian Democratic Centre (centre instead of center) in order to preserve uniformity with the name of the successor party, but three users opposed my idea (see discussion). As administrator, what do you think about it? --Checco 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've stated my opinon on the talk page, hope it helps. —Nightstallion (?) 10:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Checco 06:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About you user page

Since I'm in a state of deep boredom today I kill the time on Wikipedia, and I read your user page. I have two or three scattered remarks.

• About the short name of the Central African Republic. Do you know if such a short name, even informal, exists in English or not? And in German? In exists in French. It's called Centrafrique. It can't be considered an informal name since it's used in the national anthem (La Renaissance) and in the title of the Constitution but not in the text itself. There is a great confusion about the gender of this noon: Centrafrique, finnisshing by a e and based on the feminine noon Afrique should be feminine. But, maybe because centre is masculine, you'll hear more often le Centrafrique than la Centrafrique. In the national anthem, it's used as a masculine noon (Longtemps soumis, longtemps brimé par tous...) But maybe you already knows al that?
• About your excellent article Monarchies in the European Union. I think its title should be something like Contemporary monarchies in Europe. There are only three monarchies in European but non EU member countries: Norway, Monaco and Liechtenstein. And their "system" is the same system as the seven other ones. So it's not worth to make an article about Monarchies in the European Union... and then another one about Monarchies in the European states that are not member of the European Union!
• I encourage you to continue your article. I was myself very proud when my Frenche article fr:Nom de règne des papes was featured and when it was translated into German als de:Pabstname! Since I don't really speak German, I've totally lost control about the evolution of the German version of the article, but I hope it will succed in its Kandidature. :o)

Švitrigaila 15:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Merger!

GSS is no more, just merged into LDP. See National Assembly of Serbia.

This act brought heaps of controversy, as SDU is extremely furious because of this. --PaxEquilibrium 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #11

[edit] Quick question

Hi Nightstallion;

I was just wondering, do you have the specific name of the font you used in the header of your user page? I like it a lot. Charles 18:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)