User talk:Nightstallion/κ

Template:Political parties in Italy

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

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)

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)

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)

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}

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)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #10

Number 10, March 4, 2007

The Hurricane Herald

This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.

Storm of the month

Cyclone Favio near Madagascar

Cyclone Favio developed well to the east of northern Madagascar on February 12 and moved to the southwest as it developed. The storm did not significantly intensify until February 19 when it was just off the soutern coast of Madagascar, but rapidly intenstified soon after to its peak with 185 km/h (115 mph) winds. Favio turned to the northwest and hit Mozambique worsening the floods already occuring in the country. Favio claimed at least 4 lives and destroyed thousands of homes.

Other tropical cyclone activity
There were a total of 6 tropical cyclones in the southern hemisphere during February. Five of these, including Favio, were in the South West Indian Ocean.

• The only other storm in the Australian region was Cyclone Nelson which formed at the end of January in the Gulf of Carpentaria before it hit Queensland.
• Cyclone Dora was active in January and reached its peak as an annular cyclone on February 3 with 185 km/h (115 mph) winds.
• Cyclone Gamede was an unusally large storm that prompted the highest level of cyclone warning on Réunion and brought strong winds to the island on February 27, causing a bridge to collapse.
• Neither Enok towards the start of the month or Humba near its end, had any impact on land.

Member of the month

Cyclone barnstar

The February member of the month is Miss Madeline. Miss Madeline is responsible for many of the projects featured lists such as List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes and List of California hurricanes. She has also put serious work into many of our Pacific hurricane articles since she joined the project as one of its founding members. Recently she has worked on 1996 Pacific hurricane season, bringing it from a stub-class article to a Good article candidate.

New and improved articles

• New featured content: Hurricane Erika (1997), Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C., Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, 2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone, Hurricane Isabel and List of Florida hurricanes (pre-1900).
• New Good articles include Hurricane Pauline, Hurricane Isis (1998), 1939 Pacific typhoon season, Typhoon Tip and 1983 Atlantic hurricane season.
• New articles include Hurricane Isis (1998), Hurricane Debby (1982), Hurricane Adolph (2001), Hurricane Alberto (1982) and Tropical Depression One (1992).

Main Page content

• Entries from 6 articles: Hurricane Flossy (1956), Hurricane Able (1951), Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, Effects of Hurricane Wilma in the Bahamas, Tropical Depression One (1992) and Tropical cyclone basins appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during February.

New articles and improvements wanted

• Articles are wanted on Pacific typhoon, North Indian cyclone, diffluence, Outflow (meteorology) and Central dense overcast.
• Improvements are wanted to Subtropical cyclone, Japan Meteorological Agency, Intertropical Convergence Zone, 1919 Florida Keys Hurricane Hurricane Ivan and Hurricane Andrew.

Storm article statistics

Grade	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar
FA	19	23	25	28
A	6	2	2	2
GA	57	74	75	80
B	78	71	76	78
Start	200	193	195	194
Stub	15	16	16	16
Total	375	379	389	398
percentage Less than B	57.3	55.1	54.2	52.8

Comments wanted on project talk Many discussions that potentially have far reaching impact for the whole project are carried out on the project's talk page. However, only a fraction of our active contributors actually engage in those discussions. If you add the project page to your Watchlist and keep an eye on discussions there to monitor upcoming changes, even if you don't participate in those discussions it would help both yourself and the project as a whole. For instance, at the moment the primary infobox templates such as {{Infobox hurricane}} are in the process of being deprecated and replaced by new versions which do the role more effectively.

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)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

News

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost 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

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)

€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)

(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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

Your edits, map, and chart are very helpful. As we cross over from one legislative year to another, I think it may get confusing as certain states will have numerous introductions, votes, etc. I think that's the underlying reason why User Checco had some comments. Going forward, you might want to have a table that indicates current status, and then another table for prior legislative years.... just a suggestion. AdamC387 23:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Have You heard that the US Senate adopted a resolution supporting conditional independence for Kosovo? --PaxEquilibrium 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. That was to be expected. —Nightstallion (?) 13:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Your notes

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

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)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nah, I wouldn't use Knesset in this case. Apart from that: Sounds fine to me, I'll simply keep looking whether I see anything I'd do differently. :) —Nightstallion (?) 08:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Gladly. —Nightstallion (?) 08:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we finally work out a solution of the problem? --Checco 14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already moved it to "Centre" a few days ago, it should be fine now. —Nightstallion (?) 14:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't paying much attention and I didn't notice it. Thank you very much. --Checco 14:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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?
  • No, I didn't... Well, one could call it "Central Africa" or "Zentralafrika", but that's also the name of a geographic region, so... mh. —Nightstallion (?) 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The Dominican Republic has an old French short name too: it's Saint-Domingue. It was usually used in the 19th century, but as it is the French name of the capital city too, it's now rarely employed to call the country itself. Švitrigaila 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• 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!
  • Yes, I've been meaning to expand it. —Nightstallion (?) 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• 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:Papstname! 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)
  • Great work on that. :) —Nightstallion (?) 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• About the way you number your archives with the Greek alphabet. Don't you want to use a Ϛ ? ;o) Švitrigaila 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Nah, not really. —Nightstallion (?) 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why so much controversy? Does the SDU fear being marginalised within the alliance? I expect further mergers may be likely after the coalition brokering is finished? —Nightstallion (?) 08:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first LSV didn't form a parliamentary club with the others, which made LDP more than half of the club (it already was the largest party in it). Then, the group was named "Parliamentary group of the Liberal Democratic Party" (no mention of any coalition partner whatsoever). Key LDP leader (at the same time ringleader of the coalition) became the club's president, and on the demands that LDP formed more than half of the club, a Liberal Democrat Vice-president also be the club's Deputy President. ANd now GSS merged into LDP, making the club's name factually valid and making the coalition just an LDP domination. Aside from that, there was a lot of controversy in including Vladan Batić, a positive nationalist, monarchist and faithful many on the list (SDU opposed this). Mr Batic is only de facto honorary President of the DHSS and it appears that he will even leave it (so far DHSS has no influence whatsoever in LDP's coalition) - making LDP even stronger. Because of these, and the fact that SDU hates GSS with all of its gut (ever GSS members seceded in 1998 over various conflicts and formed SDU) - the two rarely agreed, only when DS gathered them. LDP mediated an alliance by including them both, and now SDU has a very low opinion on LDP, since GSS is its part now.

The party is split between two options: one favoring a coalition with LDP and the other, desired to break it and join with the LSV. --PaxEquilibrium

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #11

Number 11, April 1, 2007

The Hurricane Herald

This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.

Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve monitoring of the WikiProject's articles.

Storm of the month

Hurricane Will developed from a tropical wave to the east of the Caribbean Sea and intensified. It crossed over Jamaica and re-emerged over water a few days later. The storm intensified into a hurricane and an eye began to develop. Will became a major hurricane over the Gulf of Mexico and made landfall on the vulnerable Gulf Coast of the United States soon after. To date, Hurricane Will has claimed over 350 lives and is directly responsible for about $5 billion of damages; of which an unknown amount was insured. Despite the damage, it is not expected that the name will be retired by WMO.

Other tropical cyclone activity

• After threatening the Eastern Seaboard for some time, Hurricane Hink has turned away and the NHC has cancelled all warnings associated with the storm.
• The 2007 Pacific typhoon season began with Tropical Storm Kong-rey forming on March 31.
• There were a total of 7 cyclones in the southern hemisphere: Becky in the South Pacific, Indlala and Jaya in the Southwestern Indian Ocean and Odette, George, Jacob and Kara in the Australian region. Indlala killed at least 80 and left over 100,000 homeless; whilst Cyclone George was the worst storm to affect Port Hedland in over 30 years.

Member of the month

Cyclone barnstar

The April member of the month is HurricaneIrene. Irene began contributing to tropical cyclone articles on Wikipedia in August 2005, but ran out of steam and left after barely 2 weeks. However, Irene's influence on the project has been wide-reaching. Her efforts led directly to two articles attaining featured status and her legacy inspired many of our most active editors to write a plethora of good articles on a wide range of storms.

New and improved articles

• The was one new featured article: Hurricane Kenna
• New Good articles include: Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, Hurricane Florence (1988), Tropical cyclone observation and 1996 Pacific hurricane season.
• New storm articles include: Hurricane Lili (1990), Tropical Storm Alberto (1988), Cyclone George and Typhoon Durian.
• New non-storm articles include: Tropical cyclone naming, list of cyclones in Western Australia, Hurricane evacuation route and Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting.

Main Page content

• Hurricane Iniki appeared on the Main Page as Today's featured article on March 15.
• Entries from 2 articles: Hurricane Katrina (1981) and Hurricane Guillermo (1997) appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during March.

Storm article statistics

Grade	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr
FA	23	25	28	29
A	2	2	2	2
GA	74	75	80	82
B	71	76	78	80
Start	193	195	194	209
Stub	16	16	16	17
Total	379	389	398	419
percentage Less than B	55.1	54.2	52.8	53.9

The Main Page

The WikiProject has a narrow scope, so it is not surprising that our articles are not frequently selected for Today's featured article. Most destructive cyclones are likely to be mentioned on the In the news column. We have no real control over that, but we should submit suggestions when appropriate.

However, we can do a more lot more to place our content in the other major section of the main page: The Did you know column. In the past month we created over 30 articles. Of these only 2 were even submitted as suggestions for DYK. We can do much better, please submit DYK entries for new articles when you do the initial assessment.

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)

I'm afraid not, sorry... —Nightstallion (?) 08:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Thanks though :-) Charles 11:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use on templates

Re [4] and [5]: The use of fair use images on templates is not permitted per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. If other country templates are using fair use images, they are in error as well. The image Image:Nepal gov logo.png is clearly marked as a fair use image and can not be used on templates regardless of the rationale you provide for such use. It is copyrighted and may not be used in this manner. The flag of Nepal is a quite adequate replacement and is available under a free license. Please stop putting the fair use image on the template as it is a direct violation of our policies. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. But, continuing to place this image in violation of our policies is not an option. Thank you. --Durin 12:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Three questions

I saw your questions, but unfortunatley now I'm in a hurry. I will answer you later. Anyway, where do you want the answers: here or in my talk page? --Checco 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Preferably here. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You asked me:

1) Is this here correct? I'm not quite certain...

2) Is Association for the Rose in the Fist an attempt to found a new leftist party...?

3) It seems there will be a new party, Socialismo Democratico...? (http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=2827839)

My answers:

1) The Reformist Socialists are a very small party based in Lazio. It is so small and personalistic (it is essentially the political vehicle of Donato Robilotta). There was no electoral pact between this party and the Rose in the Fist (RnP). Simply Robilotta was a candidate of RnP. It is a party so small that I can't give you complete information about it and I wouldn't insert it the the Template:Italian political parties (complete).

2) The Association for the Rose in the Fist was founded by those members of RnP who are neither members of the Italian Democratic Socialists (SDI) nor of the Italian Radicals (Rad). It is an association, not a party, but, anyway, it is considered the third component of RnP and has 2 deputies out of 18 in the RnP group. RnP is close to disbandament, so that the members of this association are trying to preserve their political future and have proposed a constituent assembly of all the Socialists (social-democrats) and Liberals (social-liberals) of Italy.

3) Italian politics is in turmoil: a new party (the Democratic Party (Italy)) maybe will come to life, but what is sure is that many people from the Democrats of the Left (DS) won't enter in the new party. Even if the Democratic Party will be launched (maybe) in 2009, next month many DS members will leave their party: basically the right-wing of Gavino Angius and Peppino Caldarola, the left of Fabio Mussi and Cesare Salvi and the ex-PSI faction of Valdo Spini. These three groups will possibly merge in a new party with SDI and other people from the old PSI (also Gianni De Michelis of the New Italian Socialist Party and The Italian Socialists of Bobo Craxi) seem to be interested). That is strange (and seems to be an "unholy alliance") 'cos Fabio Mussi and, say, Enrico Boselli hold different opinions on many political issues, but they could unify with the goal of re-founding a purely social-democratic party, which will have a right-wing and a left-wing. Undoubtely the Association for the Rose in the Fist is very interested in this project and has taken the political initiative: last month, it organized a convention with people from all the parties mentioned before. Anyway, the only thing which seems certain is that Fabio Mussi is to launch his new party later this month. Possible names? Many, but as of today the most probable name is "Democratic Left". --Checco 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Okay, thanks.

2) Ah, I see. So this edit is better and more correct, then?

3) Very interesting... Good to know you'll keep us up to date, then. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Okay.

2) That edit is definitely more correct, even if it is very difficult to classify the Association for the Rose in the Fist as a party.

3) I will defintely keep you to date... I'm so excited about these changes, let's see. --Checco 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

2) I realise that, but as the Italian party system is currently in a state of flux, I believe this is the best representation of the current situation which we can do, right?

3) So am I, so am I. Thanks for the information! —Nightstallion (?) 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

2) I agree with you. It is important to underline that RnP is not only "SDI+Radicals", but something more... --Checco 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

3) The faction of Fabio Mussi is supported by a 15% of DS members, and would have an electoral support of 2-3%. For this reason the "Democratic Left" (the name is not yet decided, anyway) needs to join forces with others. Mussi has actually two options: the first one is to stick with SDI, NPSI and other former members of PSI, the second one is to join forces with the Communist Refoundation Party (PRC), the Party of Italian Communists (PdCI), the Federation of the Greens or all three together (in order to form a "United Left", as that of Spain). As of, say, November 2006 the last option seemed more likely, but as of April 2007 it is the first one which seems to be more likely. We'll see. In the meantime I remember you that a group from Mussi's faction, led by Pietro Folena (who was n. 2 of DS under Walter Veltroni), has left the DS last year to join PRC and another group, rooted in Liguria, left the party in January (this group, named "United for the Left" or "Movement for the Left", has formed joint-lists with PRC and PdCI in some local electoral contexts of Liguria). That's all... for now! --Checco 08:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll see which one of the two options he takes... But frankly, *ANY* kind of merger on the left side of politics can only be good, right? The strong divisions and the number of parties on the left are Berlusconi's biggest advantage... —Nightstallion (?) 10:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Berlusconi, but what is certain is that these merges are a big advantage for Italians as whole: the Italian political system has too many problems, one of which is fragmentation. --Checco 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye, that too; I just meant that for a leftist like me, the fact that the left is far more fragmented makes it even worse. —Nightstallion (?) 15:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

April fools

On 1 April the media mass-reported that an SRS-DSS government was formed. :))) A lot of people actually bought it. LOL

File:Flag of Kingdom of Montenegro.png

Is this not nice as well (fraternity, liberty, equality)?

The today's discussion about the new Constitution of Montenegro had no progress. The ruling coalition (DPS-SDP) suggested that Montenegro be an unidentified civic state - but the Serbian opposition suggested a "state of Serbs and Montenegrins and other citizens". The Bosniak opposition supports that, but wants the Bosniaks to be mentioned as a third constitutional people. But Milo (DPS) contradicted there, as he mentioned in the first part of the Constitution that Montenegrin statehood and Montenegro itself are based on the historical rights of the Montenegrin people with several other nationalist bits, almost to the bias of those in the Croatian Constitution. Also it does not fulfill it as the Constitution pays no heed to minority rights at all [unlike EU's demands] (which the opposition, especially the Serbs and PzP, vigorously oppose). The discussion spurred into a fight with numerous racist remarks and ethnic slurs against Serbs and Bosniacs from the Socialists (who even said that they deny their very existence, claiming that all those who think they are "something called Serbs" and all Slavic Muslims living in Montenegro "are really all ethnic Montenegrins").

Milo's DPS-SDP coalition proposed also that the Montenegrin language be the only official language of Montenegro. The Serbs and the olden opposition (SNP-NS-DSS) wants Serbian to remain, while the Movement for Changes proposed a mediation between the two: "Serbo-Montenegrin language", to evade further disunity and crackdowns. The Bosniacs also demand some form of recognition of the Bosnian language in the Constitution.

The ruling DPS-SDP coalition wants to maintain separate Church from the state and mention none, but the Serbs and SNP-NS-DSS want that "Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and the Islamic Community are the present religions of Montenegro" be put. The Croatian Civic Initiative demands the Orthodoxes separate, so that the "Montenegrin Orthodox Church and the Serbian Orthodox Church" be put instead of just "Eastern Orthodox".

Europe greatly criticized that the Judicial branch should be independent, but Milo's DPS-SDP dudes demand that the Courts be totally dependent on the Parliament (the whole opposition opposes it).

National symbols: the opposition wants the return of the Serbian tri-color into the flag and demands the replacement of the erh "Nazi" anthem. The government accepts changes of the flag, coat-of-arms and national anthem, but only insignificantly.

One of the changes to which everyone agreed is that War and Peace is now under the Parliament's control and that the President is the supreme leader of the military (so far the Government controlled everything, and the Premier was in power [guess why? Does the word "Milo" ring a bell ;)?]).

What do You think of all this (which proposals do You like or not like)?

On tomorrow's UN Security Council's session regarding Kosovo: There shall be no consensus. I guess I was right from the beginning. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see.

I'd be in favour of having either a non-national state or, failing that, clearly enumerating ALL peoples of the state (Montenegrins, Serbs, Bosniaks, Albanians, Roma, ...); church and state MUST be kept separately; I'm not too much in favour of changing the flag, as I find the current one to be very beautiful; the judicial branch MUST be independent; and the last two changes should be obvious.

Regarding Kosovo: I'm fairly certain Russia will abstain, thus paving the way for an official an internationally sanctioned Kosovar independence. (Whether that's a good thing is another question entirely, of course.) —Nightstallion (?) 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(peoples): so You agree with PzP's and SNP-NS-DSS's proposal?

(religion): You misunderstood. The separation is not controversial: recognition of Churches. What's Your opinion on that?

File:Old Flag of Montenegro.png

...or this old flag?

(insignia): actually, the current temporary flag was adopted in 2004 and is unconstitutional i.e. "illegal". So, the controversy lies in what should be the real flag. Also, what about the "Nazi" anthem? Also, the Bosniaks feel the Coat-of-Arms, Flag and anthem do not represent them at all and want some form of recognition.

Also I forgot about this (wanna hear your opinion on it too): DPS-SDP do not want elections immediately after the Constitution (like happened in Serbia) and the whole opposition wants it. --PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Peoples: I'm in favour of not naming any peoples at all, but defining minority rights for all national minorities (which would, of course, be determined through an anonymous national census).

Religion: No, absolutely not. Religion should be kept out of the constitution; Montenegro should simply have a national register of recognised religions, or something like that, as many other nations do. No need to mimic states with too much history in this mistake...

Flag: I still find the current flag to be the best one, not in the least because there are already far too many blue-red-white tricolours around in Slavic Europe, if you ask me. I prefer variety. ;)

Elections: Either way is fine, if you ask me; either no elections or general elections for everything from president and parliament down to municipal councils.

—Nightstallion (?) 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

In Serbia the idiots cannot agree to continue the session of the Parliament. DS wants to elect a transitional temporary President (from Democrats' ranks) but failed to amass majority (SRS, SPS and DSS-NS accumulated a large opposition). The main initiative was so that the National Assembly with elected temporary bodies (until the Government is formed) could vote a new Law that would legalize the 2007 budget lengthening it to 31 June.

Interesting thing - the President of Serbia's Constitutional Court in resignation said that if any child reads Serbia's (new or old) Constitution and just several laws from Koshtunitza's government, it could quite easily observe that the acting parliamentary President (Borka Vucic from the Socialist Party of Serbia) could've and should've easily held a session and brought the Law. He criticized how this perfectly shows that the Serbian political elite doesn't have knowledge of its own laws (aside from other). --PaxEquilibrium 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

True enough, true enough... —Nightstallion (?) 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

So You agree with DPS-SDP and PzP on the religion subject?

Flag: AFAIK the flag is somewhat criticized for being one-colored and thus, dull. But the largest point is that it's lack of historicism when compared to the two I presented to You for example. BTW the reason why I don't quite like the flag is because it's (based upon) the old War Flag.

Elections: all modern polls say the national thrill and overjoyed enthusiasm, "fire", extinguished by now; and that Milo no longer enjoys the support of the majority. If he enforces an unpopular constitution, or even worse loses the referendum, that election would be his final defeat. This way another 4 years will pass and by then a lot might change. That's why I think general elections are a must-have.

You didn't comment the.. err.. "Nazi" anthem, nor the Bosniacs' demands...? --PaxEquilibrium 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion: Yeah, I suppose so.

Flag: Mh. I see why you dislike it, but I find the simple defaced blue-red-white tricolour to be far more boring than the red-and-gold flag, it somehow appeals to me very much... On purely artistic grounds, I'd prefer the current flag.

Elections: shrugs Sure, why not. Elections can't hurt.

I'm afraid I don't really know enough about the anthem; the Bosniaks' demands are as valid as all the minorities' are, I suppose. —Nightstallion (?) 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Elections: Yes they can; if you're a poor country

Flag: How about the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Anthem: The current Montenegrin anthem was written during World War II in the Independent State of Croatia by the Montenegrin collaborationist Axis dictator with Ustashi assistance.

It practically is the same; the difference is just that the verses that were ultra-nationalist, anti-semitic and anti-islamic were removed. --PaxEquilibrium 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Elections: True enough, yeah. Still, having a clean slate after adopting a new constitution is worth it, I suppose.

Flag: Mh, yeah, that is actually a good example. I wouldn't be opposed to an entirely new, integrative design; the problem lies in coming up with one...

Anthem: Well, many states have anthems which have a questionable past, but yes, I can see the problem. —Nightstallion (?) 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Anthem: The following are two anthems of Montenegro during its old era old Princedom and Kingdom (one state anthem, and the other popular anthem which remains the unofficial Montenegrin anthem to this very day): Ubavoj nam Crnoj Gori (state anthem) and Onamo, 'namo! (popular anthem).

The Serbian Premier in BH proposed a new order for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and said that it would quell all separatist feelings among the Bosnian Serbs and to an extent Croats. He said that the "Republic of Bosnia and Herzergovina" should be renamed to a strongly decentralized and loose "Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina" and proposed the same order as with the FBiH (Serb, Bosniac and Croat cantons). Sarajevo refused this soundly though, as they demand a unitary state. --PaxEquilibrium 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Anthem: problem is not just in that it was formed by the Nazis, but in its reasons - the song had been altered by the Nazis in an organized attempt to destroy the Serbs in Montenegro.

The song was a popular Montenegrin anthem that went like this:

O, bright dawn of heroism,

Our mother Montenegro!

On your mountains,

Broke the force of the enemy.

You are the only freedom

Remained to the Serbian kin.

God will give and the Holy Mother

That everything is once returned.

That way it seems as if DPS is literally continuing the Nazi ideology (which it is, according to some people from the opposition). --PaxEquilibrium 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed a problem, aye... Regarding Bosnia, either a unitary state or a stable federation would be a good idea, as long as Serbs, Croats and Muslims finally learn to live with each other. —Nightstallion (?) 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a unitary state is the most horrible option, even worse than this one. If such a thing would be endorsed, we would have a deja vu from the 1990s...

But which of the 3 anthems would You prefer (all has its advantages and problems) and what solution would You suggest)? --PaxEquilibrium 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know. —Nightstallion (?) 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw, come on! :) You like politics, and this anthem is oh-so-much about politics... --PaxEquilibrium 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Well, the words all seem equally bland and pseudo-patriotic to me (as almost all anthems do...), so I'd have to choose based on the music. —Nightstallion (?) 22:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

here's the link to one and here's the other. --PaxEquilibrium 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also found a version of the third possible anthem; that said, musically speaking I prefer your second one, which I believe is Oj svijetla majska zoro, right? —Nightstallion (?) 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. How about any changes to the wording (I myself would prefer rewriting it completely, to exclude any paragraph written by Sekula Drljevic.

You found the old regal state anthem? Really? I searched everywhere for it. Where did You find it? --PaxEquilibrium 10:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was here, but the site's down right now. Yes, changes to the lyrics would be *VERY* necessary. —Nightstallion (?) 10:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's down. :((( Too bad.

Controversy lies in that that the opposition (mostly) requests the return of some form of mention of Serbs in the anthem. While the totally different ideology ruling coalition under Milo Djukanovic does not accept it as a possibility (thereby earning the nickname "Nazi").

I think the Security Council will not be able to reach a compromise, prolonging the painful Kosovo question even more... I sense new controversies. --PaxEquilibrium 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Tectonic plates

Hello, I've taken the liberty of changing the image of tectonic plates you have in your sandbox to Image:Plates tect2 en.svg per recommendations on the earlier image's page. Hope you don't mind. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, and thanks for telling me! —Nightstallion (?) 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

For now..

...it seems that the United Nations will have a loooong discussion ahead of them. It also appears that the most probable outcome (so far) will be new negotiations as requested by Russia, China and Slovakia. USA fiercely opposes this and says that a solution must be brought immediately. --PaxEquilibrium 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's unlikely new discussions would bring a new result... —Nightstallion (?) 21:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Are You sure? Wouldn't the two conflicting sides realize that neither can win (they both hope[d] that the SC will conclude in their favor, thus they [especially the Albanian side] rushed for it). So far there haven't been at all key negotiations. Belgrade never ever wanted to hear anything but independence and the word of the Albanians meant little - the Albanian side pushed and said that only independence and nothing else is acceptable, ignoring all previously-agreed standards (situation first, status later). Neither side actually heard the other out. If new negotiations are accepted, the *real* negotiations may start. I think if they bring the necessary political will into it, a "SK" ("State Union of Serbia and Kosovo") or something similar could be designed. --PaxEquilibrium 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mh. I somehow doubt that the Kosovar Albanians would be willing to enter such a State Union without the guarantee that they would be allowed to hold an independence referendum five or ten years later, and I also doubt that Serbia would aquiesce to such a referendum. —Nightstallion (?) 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Kostunica's minority tiny conservative government in resignation - no. But remember that it's in resignation. And that, despite he might be the new Premier (Boris Tadic announced that he will declare himself as a last resort, since he is far more popular than Bozidar Djelic), he would only be its de facto head and only fictional president now. Also keep on mind that new elections mind follow up soon in Kosovo, which will bring demise to Ceku's criminal-filled government. Imagine if Veton Suroi and Boris Tadic lead the entities - now how would compromise be impossible between such two people? --PaxEquilibrium 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I can't imagine Tadic leading the government -- who'd become president then? —Nightstallion (?) 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea. But keep on mind that politicians rise and fall. No one even heard of Boris Tadic before Zoran Djindjic was assassinated; Tomislav Nikolic came to full glory only after Vojislav Seselj went to Hague and Mladjan Dinkic shined fully only after Miroljub Labus left. --PaxEquilibrium 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, true enough -- emerging democracies tend to have an amazing politician turnover rate (even without assassinating them ;)). —Nightstallion (?) 06:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work on National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

I'd say it's almost ready for GA if not FA status. Keep up the good work :) -- Tawker 22:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You think so? Maybe GA, but certainly not FA -- I'd have to add a lot of information about the controversy behind it first, and I haven't got enough time for that right now... —Nightstallion (?) 11:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you the original barnstar for your hard work and for creating United National Front (Afghanistan). Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

New Estonian government

I read on Parties and Elections in Europe taht the new cabinet is formed by the Estonian Reform Party, the Union of Pro Patria and Res Publica and the Social Democratic Party, bypassing the Estonian Centre Party. Is that true? A left-right government bypassing the centre is at least strange. Why has it happened? I know that in Eastern European countries there are other similar governments, but it seems to me strange anyway. --Checco 09:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Social Democratic Party is very much populist and only slightly leftist -- actually, the Centre Party is social liberal and likely more left than the Social Democrats. The Reform Party is truely in the centre, and the Union is strongly rightist. You have to remember that in the Baltics, party names don't really mean anything... —Nightstallion (?) 13:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So, it is true that the new government is composed of these three parties? --Checco 13:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. They shortly also had the Estonian Greens in talks to join, but Ansip decided against it, since he's already got a majority with only those three parties. —Nightstallion (?) 13:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Checco 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact 2

I noticed the changes in the image. Very good, now it is more clear and complete. Can I ask you if you are in favour of the proposal? --Checco 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally am, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 13:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose it, but I'm not sure of being able to explain why in English! Anyway I support minor changes modelled on the so-called Maine method. --Checco 13:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That would also be an improvement, but I believe a national popular vote is ultimately more sensible. —Nightstallion (?) 13:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose it mainly because of my support of federalism, but, as I said before, unfortunately I'm not able to explain my position about in English. In any case, my idea is that the current system is good 'cos it makes the final result safe from different turnouts in the single States. --Checco 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In Italy we have a similar problem. Indeed the coalition which has more votes nationally wins a majority of seats in the Chamber of Deputies. As there are regions with higher turnouts (Northern Italy, Turcany and Emilia-Romagna) and regions with lower turnouts (mainly the South, Sicily and Sardinia), the last regions are some way unrepresented. --Checco 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the absolutely non-proportional way the U.S. system works is far worse than any low turnout. The fact that some regions have higher turnout than others does not in any way present a need for an unproportional electoral system. Nothing's keeping people in the south from going to vote, so it's not at all the electoral system's fault in my opinion. —Nightstallion (?) 14:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood what I wanted to say. Obviously it is my fault and of my bad English. Anyway the substance is that we hold different opinions about the electoral sytem: you are in favour of proportional representation, while I'm strongly committed to a first-past-the-post system. About electoral systems, there are news from Italy as well: it seems that the centre-left and the centre-right are very close on the subject. The two coalition experts (Vannino Chiti, DS, for the centre-left and Roberto Calderoli, LN, for the centre-right) have in mind almost identical proposals, based on direct election (or indication) of the prime minister, coalitions, proportional representation, small constituencies (electing 5-10 deputies each), a national majority premium (both for the Chamber and the Senate) and higher tresholds (3% for the Chamber, 5% on at a regional level for the Senate). --Checco 14:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of having used the correct technical terms in English, but I hope you understood me anyway! --Checco 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I understood you, and I have to say again -- your English is far from bad. BTW, though, why are you in favour of a FPTP system? —Nightstallion (?) 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For many reasons. If you want you can read here (it is written in Italian), where my opinion is explained perfectly by Mauro Vaiani, coordinator of "Toscana Libertaria", a libertarian association, composed basically of former Radicals. I consider FPTP the most democratic way of represent people: candidates must be linked to their electorate, represent their voters not a party and, especially in swing districts, are not sure of their election. Anyway the most important feature of FPTP is that candidates (thus persons) count more than parties. This is the reason why I like the US and the UK political systems, even if I know that also in those countries there are some bad things, such as gerrymandering in the US. You are leftish and support PR: it seems coherent. What is strange about Italy is that it is the left to support FTPT (but also the Radicals and AN), while the centre-right (but AN) prefers PR. This is one of the few things about which I'm closer to the left than the right in Italy. Strange, really. --Checco 14:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

More... I think that FTPT is the most federalist electoral system. What is strange is that the Northern League doesn't understand it. What is even more strange is that the centre-right decided to change the electoral system from FPTP to a form of PR and lost the election (with the previous system it would have won it), while the left opposed the change and won the election thanks to the new system. Strange, strange. --Checco 14:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, one can have both at the same time -- the German system combines FPTP with very good proportional representation, similar systems are used in Scotland and New Zealand. —Nightstallion (?) 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I like very much the system of Scotland, but probably the system I like most (after simple FPTP) is the one we had for the Italian Senate from 1994 to 2006 (75% of the seats assigned with FPTP and 25% with PR, assigned to the narrowest defeated candidates in uninominal districts). I don't like the German electoral system 'cos the final result is proportional. --Checco 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really get why it's *BAD* if the result is proportional, but whatever. —Nightstallion (?) 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We simply hold different opinions about the electoral system, as we do in politics. I don't think it is a problem and, as I wrote you some days ago, I like very much talking with you. Indeed, I think that is wonderful to share similar interests and views about how Wikipedia is to be. Don't you? --Checco 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, certainly! —Nightstallion (?) 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Association for the Rose in the Fist

If you want to know something more about this association, you can look at its officicial website and especially here. --Checco 10:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Liberals merging?

You wrote: "Judging by your edits to Federation of Italian Liberals, it seems the liberal parties might merge, too? —Nightstallion (?) 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)"

My answer:

FdL is a minor group (maybe less than 500 members throughout Italy) and it launched what it was called "Coordinamento dei Liberali Italiani" (see here) with other minor groups. Maybe they would form a party of 0.1% but not more than this. The old Italian Liberal Party had the 3% circa and most former Liberals (probably more than the 90%) are now in Forza Italia. What is more interesting is the new federation formed by the Italian Liberal Party, the Italian Republican Party and other groups: they have 3 deputies and 1 senator, and they will form a single list for the next European Parliament election of 2009. As there are no tresholds, the "Liberals, Republicans and Reformers" (as they named their group in the Chamber of Deputies) will probably score around 0.5-1% and will elect a MEP. --Checco 15:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. No article yet about Liberals, Republicans and Reformers? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is only a tiny parliamentary group, indeed the federation has to be approved by both congresses of the two parties and it is not clear what other parties or political associations will join. Anyway, it is a good idea to start a new article. I will think about it, indeed now we have too little information about it. --Checco 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the information! —Nightstallion (?) 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The correct name is Republicans, Liberals, Reformers. I will start an brief article now. --Checco 16:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I started the article. Check it if you want. --Checco 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Great work! I copyeditted it a bit. —Nightstallion (?) 16:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. Even I noticed some mistakes and I just made some changes. --Checco 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Heheheh

Tomislav Nikolic wants to be the temporary President of the National Assembly, based on the democratic unwritten code that his party is the largest in the Parliament. --PaxEquilibrium 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He's kind of desparate for any kind of office right now, huh? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 06:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

All relevant parliamentary lists just decided (on Kostunica's proposal; I think he just wants to stay in power as much as he can, considering he's the current Prime Minister) to stop and ban all talks about politics until the end of the Holidays. The poor babies are tired of all the hard work about the new government they had done; they must have at least some rest! --PaxEquilibrium

BTW the UN mission will head to Kosovo in 19 April to examine the situation carefully in the whole territory/province; which will significantly affect the outcome (if the conclusion is bad, Kosovo will never get independence, at least not soon enough - if good, the SC will enforce independence). Pristina has just 12 days to prepare for the inspection; I'm not sure if they'll manage. --PaxEquilibrium 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Very willing to work, it seems... We'll see what the mission finds out, yeah. —Nightstallion (?) 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

---

It begins in Serbia... the municipal parliament of Leskovac has been dismissed (Kostunica lost support for his local conservative mini-regime) and the City is not being funded at all for months by now. The citizens have organized into a general strike and have went to block the man Highway running by, where they failed, having gotten into conflict with heavily-armed police units. Kostunica is creating an act on a "temporary regional crisis government", which enables him to name any administration official in Leskovac... (remember what I wrote before).

In Montenegro the self-styled "Montenegrin Orthodox Church" demanded and announced the takeover of all Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastic property on the soil of the Republic of Montenegro (allegedly with the help of the "Lovćen guard", a para-military unit under control of Jevrem Brković). President Filip Vujanovic openly said that he will not allow the usurpation of the property of the Serbian Orthodox Church and that he will defend it with all means available... he has come into conflict with Lord Milo Djukanovic regarding this... (remember what I wrote before). --PaxEquilibrium 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. The first part sounds like it could lead to a major crisis... —Nightstallion (?) 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes; what is more, the winning lists have betrayed their own opinion - the holidays're over, and there is no negotiation about any possible new government.

P.S. ...and the second part? --PaxEquilibrium 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems as if Vujanovic is becoming more independent, doesn't it? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This crisis the some say might lead (again) to civil war in Montenegro is evidently escalating again. I doubt Milo Djukanovic will remain in the shadows during this time and let his own peons play against him. He has dealt with far greater problems (like assassinating a notable journalist; the head of the opposition The Day newspaper that destroyed his reputation as a Montenegrin national hero). He's only counting all the money he robbed in the past years.

BTW I hear he'll run for President on the following election. We might see an epic clash between Filip and Milo (like the one in 1997-1998 between Momir and Milo; but back then Milo was the good guy unlike in this case). :) --PaxEquilibrium 18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian elections

Thanks for the heads up. I have added the two Quebecan independence referenda, and a couple of others from the Referendums in Canada article. I found the full list (+ results) for Prince Edward Island referenda on their government's website at http://www.electionspei.ca/plebiscites/PEIplebiscites.pdf. I'll get round to doing a proper search for the other provinces later (some of them (BC, NWT, NV, MT, SK, ON) don't even have election templates yet. I'm slowly working my way up the Americas at the moment! Number 57 22:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Would be even better if you could create articles for the referenda, but linking them is more than enough. —Nightstallion (?) 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you changed plebiscite to referendum on the template links. They actually call them plebiscites on PEI (see the link above), so perhaps we should stick to that? There is a difference; a referendum has binding force, whilst a plebiscite is only a vote to gauge public opinion (see here). Number 57 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mh. We'd have to rename a lot of articles based on that distinction, then, though... —Nightstallion (?) 12:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be done over a long period I guess; for now I just think the PEI ones should be called plebiscites, as this is their official designation. I'm sure not all countries get it right, and there is no distinction on the Wikipedia article Referendum (although I think I might split off plebiscite as a seperate article now the distinction has come to light) for instance, so perhaps just sticking with official terminology would be better... Number 57 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you're right. —Nightstallion (?) 13:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Italian political parties (complete)

I defenitely agree with your last edit in Template:Italian political parties (complete). --Checco 08:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 08:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Democrats of the Left

You wrote:

Let me just check whether I understand Democrats_of_the_Left#IV_national_congress correctly: There'll be three mergers. The Democratic Party, a socialist party under the leadership of Fabio Mussi, and a social-democratic/radical/reformist party based on the Association for the Rose in the Fist? —Nightstallion (?) 08:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My answer:

There are three groups in the party:

• the majority, led by Piero Fassino, which wants to merge with DL to form PD;
• the left-wing, led by Fabio Mussi, Cesare Salvi, Valdo Spini and others, which will almost certainly leave the party this month (two possible directions: 1) a new social-democratic party with SDI; 2) an alliance with PRC;
• a third group, led by Gavino Angius, which is very critical with PD, proposes a federation with DL, SDI, IdV and the Greens (as the old Olive Tree) and a new party within PES (as the majority of DS wants to form PD by 2009, this group has two possibilites: 1) to stay within DS and fight for a social-democratic PD, even if DL doesn't want to enter in PES; 2) to leave DS and join forces with SDI, other Socialist groups, the Association for the Rose in the Fist and, maybe, also with Mussi's group, in order to form a new social-democratic party.

As you can see there are at least 5 options:

1) The PD is formed, Angius stays in it, and Mussi forms an alliance with PRC;

2) The PD is formed, Angius stays in it, and Mussi forms a new party with SDI and others;

3) The PD is formed, Angius gets out and forms a party with SDI and others, and Mussi forms an alliance with PRC;

4) The PD is formed, both Angius and Mussi form a new party with SDI and others;

5) The PD is disbanded before being founded.

I can't say what option is more likely. --Checco 09:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. You can't believe how glad I am there's someone who keeps track of all this (= you)... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 09:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Checco 09:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to Democrats of the Left#IV national congress, in order to make it clearer. If you want, you can check if it is understandable and orthographically correct. --Checco 09:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well done again, but it contradicts your statements above: The article states that Angius will certainly leave, while you said that he might stay. —Nightstallion (?) 09:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I used "almost certainly leave" for Mussi and "likely to leave" for Angius. If "likely to leave" is too much strong, what can we write instead of it? In the meantime, I added some new information into Association for the Rose in the Fist. --Checco 09:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe qualify it? He's likely to leave *unless* he manages to influence the PD strongly towards joining the PSE. —Nightstallion (?) 09:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Check if it is all right. --Checco 11:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter Issue XI - April 2007
Project news The project has now passed the 10,000 article tagged as in scope. It is hoped to see much more effort going into the improvement of these articles. Those of particular concern are those of "high" or even "top" importance/priority that are still only stubs. If any of these are about anything you know about or can quickly research please add what you can. Member news The project has currently 217 members, 5 joined & 2 leavers since the last newsletter at the start of March 2007 Other news A bot compiled list of new literature related pages is now available at Portal:Literature/New pages. The peer review department of the Novels WikiProject is always open for peer reviewing articles. Department & Task Force news We now have five administration Departments which now include an Automation Department which is the home for support and administration of automated update activity. Anyone with such experience and can get involved look in here for work ideas and to make suggestions. The three task forces are gradually growing but need support to succeed. Also if you have further such ideas for co-operation - also let us know. At the Short Story task force we have just started to consider what a standard short story article should ideally include and an article pattern template debate has started here. Auto list news Our Auto Generated lists appear to have lost the editor who created and supported them. If any other editors have the ability and are willing to have a stab at producing replacement updates, please let us know. Current debates On {{Infobox_Book}} template talk page there was a discussion on adding website links to the template. Later on more debates opened on adding WikiQuote, then Editors & foreword-contributors and further Serialized books and release date? Short story article debate has started here as mentioned above.	From the Members Welcome to the eleventh issue of the Novels WikiProject's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk), Initiating Editor Collaboration of the Month This month's Collaboration has been selected by popular vote and is The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling. Someone has pointed out that the 22nd of April is the 300th birthday of Henry Fielding so it behoves us to honour his memory with a suitable effort here! Newsletter challenge Last month's On the Eve challenge was met by the user TAnthony (talk · contribs) (who is possibly from the planet Arrakis) with a nice stub .... The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is the genre Political thriller.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

please clean up after a page move

Hi, in the future, when you move a page, like you did at Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchate), please check to see if any double redirects are left behind, and if there are, please fix them. Thanks. Gentgeen 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a hurry. —Nightstallion (?) 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates on Italian political parties

Great work, Nightstallion! Sorry for the duplication of the National Bloc of Freedom... maybe I made some other mistakes, but excuse me... I was so tired yesterday night. Anyway I removed Tuscanian Alliance because it it *alive*, indeed it is the Tuscanian section of the Lega Nord, although it has changed name now, as Liga Veneta in Veneto, the Lombard League in Lombrady and so on. Remember that Lega Nord is a federation of regional parties. I also removed For Italy in the World with Tremaglia, 'cos it it not a party but a list, or better the name used by National Alliance for the elections by Italians abroad. It is not a party and, above all, the list is still active in South America. --Checco 07:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Is this and this correct then? And while I know that FIitWwT is not really a party, I somehow had to add it to the active parties template...

So, are all the political parties in the "complete" template still active? Thanks a lot for your help! BTW, if we somehow miss articles on any important historical parties, could you put a redlink to them into the historical template? Thanks again! —Nightstallion (?) 09:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! When I will find a historical party which is out of the "historical" template, I will put it into it: for now it seems me ok. The political parties in the "complete" template are all still active, I think, but I never heard of some of them. Thanks to you, anyway! --Checco 11:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! How likely is it that anything substantial will occur, i.e. party mergers or splits, in 2007 or 2008? AFAIK, there are only provincial and municipal elections planned, but I somehow expect that most of the micro parties without representation would merge into the larger ones at some point... —Nightstallion (?) 11:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope it, but Italian politics is irrational and as long as tiny parties like PRI, MRE and PSDI will have their parliamentaty representation thanks to major parties and low tresholds, despite their small electoral force, they will not merge in larger ones. There's also some nostalgia for the First Republic and for the old parties, at least among politicians of the old guard... Undoubtely a good electoral law will help a bit, but the biggest problem is the representativeness (!?!) of Italian parties in general.

Anyway... I would have not added the Tremaglia list in the "complete" template andI would have not added the Republicans, Liberals, Reformers and, consequently, the Italian Liberal Party, in the "normal" template. --Checco 12:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll see, we'll see. I think with some kind of electoral threshold the fragmentation will be greatly reduced, especially with the projects of Democratic Party (Italy), Republicans, Liberals, Reformers, Association for the Rose in the Fist, Fabio Mussi's list...

I removed RLR from the normal template again, but left Tremaglia on it. I also added the Green Greens, who seem to be separate from the Federalist Greens, though they share a parliamentary group. —Nightstallion (?) 12:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Federalist Greens and Greens Greens are the same party, but, anyway, they have no MPs, no MEPs and only one regional councillor in Piedmont. --Checco 12:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's both it:Verdi Verdi and it:Verdi Federalisti, and while my Italian is not too good, I believe they're separate parties and not successors of some kind...

BTW: Is it true what it:Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano states, that they left the CdL? The English article states they are not part of any coalition, but they're still in the templates as part of CdL... —Nightstallion (?) 14:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It.Wiki is not a reliable source. We discussed there about merging the two articles, but as nobody cares about these parties (or better that party) in Italy nothing was done. I work more in en.Wiki because I don't like much it.Wiki: it is too much provincial, less professional, often NPOV... I don't like it.

What about NPSI? As UDC, NPSI is trying to distance itself from CdL, but, anyway, facts are facts, and it is a fact that both UDC (90% of the cases) and NPSI (80% of the cases) will contest next local elections in alliance with FI, AN, LN and DCA: the CdL. --Checco 14:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

More... CdL and The Union haven't common organs and are coalitions for the elections. When elections are distant, coalitions are less present. --Checco 14:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I assumed it.wiki to be more up-to-date than en.wiki, but it appears you're right; it's not. —Nightstallion (?) 14:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia naming dispute list

First I want to say that User:Nightstallion/notes is a very usefull list of past/future events/activities to track. I appreciate it very much!

On the subject - I was browsing over Foreign relations of Macedonia and Macedonia naming dispute, but I can't find nowhere (including light google search) a list of countries that recognise FYROM as such or as RoM. There are some examples given about both cases, also some numbers as "106 countries recognise ...", even sourced with links, but I can't find nowhere the list of these 106 countries...

Have you any additional information about this? Alinor 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm afraid not, but it would be a very good idea to compile such a list. Shall we start one? —Nightstallion (?) 14:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but besides the few listed in the articles themselfs I can't find no more info :( Alinor 12:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mh, that's too bad. Maybe we could write the Foreign Ministry of Macedonia and ask them? —Nightstallion (?) 13:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I added lists to Macedonia_naming_dispute and Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia. Let's hope that someone fills them out. Currently also missing is information about countries recognized Macedonia (eighter as RoM or FYROM), but not yet established diplomatic relations... Alinor 15:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

€2 commemorative coins: date correction

Hello. Well, I've already run into a problem with describing release dates. In some cases, a coin might have two dates of release- one the issue date (this would be the 'first date of issue' or FDI) and one the release date (this would be the 'first date of circulation' or FDC- when the coin was released to the public).

Should there be those two dates with a notation in the reference as to what the two dates reflect, or should there be only one date? If only one date, which date should be reflected- the FDI or the FDC?

For the moment, just to get this out, I'll indicate the two dates. Let me know how this should be written and I'll make the change.

BTW- This is part of the release strategy I spoke of before with regard to releasing these commemorative coins.

-JR
Theeuro 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Put both dates, write

FDI: date

FDC: date

and put a footnote with <ref>EXPLANATION</ref> the first time these abbreviations appear. —Nightstallion (?) 10:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a much better way to do the dates... looks clean and neat. I'll keep an eye out for the 'OK' to relase information about the remaining commemoratives for this year.

You might be interested to know that there is currently a rather heated debate regarding Belgium's commemorative for this year. With the Treaty of Rome issue and their regular 2 euro coin issue, they may have met the maximum mintage allowed. One of the options is to release a collectors edition 5 euro coin instead and scrap the 2 euro issue altogether. That would be a first.

As soon as the debate is settled, I'll update the article.

Theeuro 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks. —Nightstallion (?) 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter!!!

Happy Easter, Nightstallion!

By the way - SRS (which is locally in power in Novi Sad, Vojvodina's capital) has just renamed 3 streets in Novi Sad. They took off the names of WWII Partisans and put the names of 3 warmongers from the Yugoslav wars (one of whom is a war criminal). The democrat opposition started mass protests, and the mayer refuted them all, responding by claiming that she'll name the Square "Ratko Mladic". --PaxEquilibrium 14:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Same to you! Argh, sometimes I just wish they'd drop dead. —Nightstallion (?) 16:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW see this poll regarding for whom you'll vote (it's in Croatian, but you'll understand the shorts for the parties and the corresponding percentages). --PaxEquilibrium 11:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Is that poll representative? Amazing lead for the SDP... —Nightstallion (?) 13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Just because you add a source doesn't mean you should remove another, existing source, especially when the existing source is being used to verify other information. On East Timorese presidential election, 2007, you added a source for one detail while removing a source that verified other details in the same paragraph, and your replacement source said nothing about those details. References must correspond to the information. And you should archive this page; the loading time is awful. Everyking 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that the original source referenced any other information, my mistake. My talk page is archived every 100 topics, so that won't be long from now. —Nightstallion (?) 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Translations

Why did you translate Federazione dei Democristiani e di Centro with Federation of Christian Democrats and of the Centre and Unione di Centro with Centre Union? Why not "Centre Federation of Christian Democrats" and "Union of the Centre" or "Union of Centre"? --Checco 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right with the second one, "Union of the Centre" is better. However, for the federation, it's a federation of christian democrats *and* of the centre, not a centre federation of christian democrats. I believe this distinction is important in translating it. —Nightstallion (?) 15:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I think that these people are pretty illiterate (Federazione dei Democristiani e di Centro is very bad Italian)... and I begin to think that they wanted to call it something like Federazione dei Democratici Cristiani e di Centro, similarly to UDC. Anyway that's the current name and thus we need to translate that name. Finally I agree with you, also in moving Centre Union to "Union of the Centre", even if it is not a completely correct translation, indeed the Italian translation for "Union of the Centre" is not "Unione di Centro" but "Unione del Centro". --Checco 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I realise that, but it would be bad English to omit the definite article in this case. BTW, thanks for your great cooperation and help in all this! :) —Nightstallion (?) 15:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood you. It is not a very big problem anyway, even if Italians are very mad about these things: I remember of having read of someone explaining why Massimo D'Alema decided to change name to his "Partito Democratico della Sinistra" into "Democratici di Sinistra" and not to "Democratici della Sinistra". It was preferred the first one not only because it sounds better... ah, Italians... --Checco 15:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... BTW, speaking of illiterates, we Austrians have got some, too... The Alliance for the Future of Austria's German name, Bündnis Zukunft Österreich, literally means "Alliance Future Austria". ;) —Nightstallion (?) 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Now... I feel better! --Checco 15:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes it even worse: Your illiterates are unlikely to make it into parliament, ours did and are one of the two most popular parties in Carinthia... —Nightstallion (?) 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the other most popular party in Carinthia. Has FPÖ some electoral force there or were all its members gone behind Haider? --Checco 15:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The other strong party in Carinthia is the SPÖ, which controlled the province until Haider came along. What's also remarkable about Carinthia is that the ÖVP is as small or smaller than the Greens there. The FPÖ will likely get about as many votes in Carinthia in 2009 as it does nationally (10% or so), while Haider will get around 20%, I expect.

Regarding the split... Everyone in Austria, most of the party elite (elected politicians and leaders) switched to the BZÖ, while the party members remained with the FPÖ. When it became apparent that the BZÖ would fail, almost all of them switched back to the FPÖ -- except for Carinthia, where the BZÖ is still rather strong. —Nightstallion (?) 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Where can I get the results of 2006 election in the various States? Only to see the electoral force of the parties in the different States... and why is Haider so popular in Carinthia and why is Carinthia such a stronghold of FPÖ before and BZÖ? --Checco 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...indeed FPÖ precursor party was strong in Carinthia from the beginning: in 1949 state elections it gained 20.6% of the votes. Only in Upper Austria and Voralberg it did better. --Checco 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can see the parties' approximate strength at Distribution of seats in the Austrian Landtage. Keep in mind, however, that the BZÖ only contested the Styrian and Viennese election in 2006; they didn't even try in Burgenland. Furthermore, while the SPÖ won the last elections in Salzburg and Styria, they've never done that before; it will be interesting to see whether they can keep these victories.

Generally speaking, provincial elections in Austria are very boring. ÖVP always wins in Vorarlberg, Tyrol and Lower Austria; SPÖ always wins in Vienna and Burgenland. Recent upsets made the elections more interesting in Styria and Salzburg, where the SPÖ managed to win the election due to very bad campaigning by the ÖVP (they were just begging to lose, if you ask me); in Styria, the KPÖ even managed to enter the Landtag, due to the strong campaigning of de:Ernest Kaltenegger, a really remarkable politician. Carinthia is mostly interesting because of Haider. Without him, the FPÖ would never have gotten so strong there; before Haider came to power in Carinthia and in the FPÖ, the FPÖ was very, very close to becoming a respectable liberal party under de:Norbert Steger, but the nationalist wing of the party managed to unseat Steger and make Haider the new leader. This lead to the split of the Liberal Forum from the FPÖ; now that the liberals have left the FPÖ (and meanwhile vote either Green (social liberals) or ÖVP (conservative liberals)), it's just a nationalistic far-right party. —Nightstallion (?) 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the results of provincial elections thanks to Wolfram Nordsieck's website, but what I was asking you is where can I find the results of 2006 national election divided by province. I'm sure that there's a page on [6], but, due to my ignorance of German language, I'm not able to find it. --Checco 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. It's here. —Nightstallion (?) 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I found what I was searching for... it was this page. I have for you the last question: why Carinthia has been a FPÖ strongold also before Haider? --Checco 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, thank you! Only now I see that you had posted me the same page. --Checco 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's mostly due to a) a large proportion of former Nazis in Carinthia (who of course voted for the WdU/VdU and then the FPÖ), and b) the irrational fear many Carinthians have of Slovenian-speaking Austrians living in Carinthia. (Most other Austrians think they're completely bollocks in that respect.) —Nightstallion (?) 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear. Thank you! --Checco 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Gladly! —Nightstallion (?) 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

BZÖ and FPÖ

I have some questions for you now. Is BZÖ actually more moderate and liberal than FPÖ? What are the differencies between these two parties? Can BZÖ be considered a conservative-liberal party? And what electoral prospects they have? Are they gauining strenght from the current political situation of grand coalition between ÖVP and SPÖ? Does this government work well and how long will it last? A new Proporz era? --Checco 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's do it step by step:

FPÖ and BZÖ are absolutely the same as far as their politics are concerned. The ONLY reason for the BZÖ's existence is that Haider had another fit and split off from his original party to found the BZÖ; their program is almost the same as the FPÖ's.

The BZÖ's electoral prospects are none at all. They might manage to live on a bit longer in Carinthia, but in other states and at the federal level, they'll never make it into parliament (again). They managed to do so in 2006 because Haider campaigned like crazy in Carinthia, but he won't be able to do that again, as he's very visibly exhausted. The BZÖ might live a bit longer in Carinthia as Haider's regional party, but as soon as he's dead or out of politics, the BZÖ will be dead, too.

Regarding the grand coalition, the only one drawing strength from it is the FPÖ. I suppose it will last until 2010, but not because they like each other so much but because they have no other choice. After the next election in 2010, when there'll likely be only four parties in parliament again (unless the BZÖ or the KPÖ surprise us), we'll see either SPÖ-Grüne (unlikely), ÖVP-FPÖ (more likely), or SPÖ-FPÖ (I hope not, because we know what national-socialists did in the past, but it's not entirely impossible).

Hope I could answer your questions! —Nightstallion (?) 15:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good, thank you! So in the future FPÖ will absorbe BZÖ or at least its votes? But why didn't ÖVP decide to form a government with BZÖ and FPÖ, and why don't the Greens and the Social Democrats cooperate? --Checco 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See also my question above, thanks. --Checco 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the FPÖ will absorb the BZÖ's votes. The ÖVP didn't form a government with FPÖ and BZÖ because FPÖ and BZÖ can't and won't cooperate due to the split and extreme animosity between those two parties; SPÖ and Grüne *would* cooperate if they could, but they have *never* had a majority in parliament up to now. —Nightstallion (?) 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Austrian politics is very interesting. Thank you. --Checco 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not nearly as interesting as Italian politics -- even if you include the KPÖ, the LIF and the SLP, we've only got eight notable parties... ;) Gladly, just ask if you've got any further questions! —Nightstallion (?) 16:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But this is one of the reason why I like it! Indeed what I like most is to concentrate on the territorial distribution of votes and parties. --Checco 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Radicals of the Left

Someone changed the title of the article. Can we come back to the previous name? --Checco 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye, indeed. —Nightstallion (?) 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. --Checco 18:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Political parties active in the Province of Bolzano

Great work on all those tiny Italian parties! I don't like them and I consider them unrelevant (it.Wiki makes a lot of advertising for them, anyway...), but I appreciate very much your work. I made some corrections here and there.

There's only one section of Italian political parties which is not complete: that of South Tyrolean parties. There's little information about the South Tyrolean People's Party in en.Wiki and I think that it deserves more. It is a very interesting catch-all party and it has many factions within it. I'm not able of reading German, so I need your help. Probably there are some sources about SVP in German talking about the SVP factions. I know little about them, but I know that basically there's the "Economy" faction (led by Senator Helga Thaler-Ausserhofer) which is centre-right and the "Labour" faction which is centre-left. The last one is something-like a social-democratic party within SVP. From it in the 70s the Social Democratic Party of South Tyrol emerged (5.1% in 1973). Now there are other parties such as the Democratic Party of South Tyrol, The Libertarians, the Union for South Tyrol and the local Greens, which are not exactly the same thing of the Italian Federation of the Greens.

I think that the pages on South Tyrolean parties need to be improved. Who better of you? --Checco 09:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find too much on the different factions in the SVP, actually... but an article on the South Tyrolean Greens is certainly a good idea: Greens of South Tyrol. Should I add them to the template, too? They're a part of the federation of the Greens, but they're an independent party, too... (And certainly support L'Unione.) —Nightstallion (?) 10:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they have a similar relationship with national Greens as that of the Liga Veneta with Lega Nord. I'm very sorry that we can't find information about the factions within SVP: they're really interesting. One it is called "Arbeit", the other one something like "Wirtschaft", but there are also other groups. For example Luis Durnwalder is probably member of a centrist faction between the two mentioned above. --Checco 10:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not have inserted the Greens of South Tyrol in the template "complete", as they are part of the Federation of Greens. If we put them, we need to put also Liga Veneta, Lombard League (political party), etc. --Checco 10:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right, I removed them again. I'll try to keep an eye on things, I expect there will be some coverage in Austrian media when the next regional election comes around. —Nightstallion (?) 10:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good, thank you! The next election is in 2008 and I think that, as it is sure that SVP will win, SVP politicians will fight hard for their faction... indeed the election is decided by preference votes. --Checco 10:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I suspected as much. —Nightstallion (?) 11:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Long time no see

Hi Nightstallion and Christos Anesti! Alinor has some interesting ideas in Talk:Macedonia naming dispute#Albanian recognition regarding compiling lists with the countries that recognize or don't recognize the constitutional name of the country North of Greece (pardon my Greekness :-)). Your insight will be valuable. NikoSilver 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

that's wrong, I'm afraid. bosnia and herzegovina is a single state, the two entities are no different from any other first-level subentity on this page

Will you stay out of my sandbox!! ;)

Actually, I'm glad you found this... We're trying to spread the short form of the Czech Republic around so it becomes quite popular before they release their euro designs (they use the short version in the design). Is it spelled Czechia in English?

Also, there are going to be some dramatic changes to the political situation in Bosnia by year's end. A portion of the country will cede and form seperatly so that it can officially join the eurozone by 2010 so that the UK can join three months later. It is all very complicated, but I wanted to see what it would look like with complicated Cyrillic characters in place.

So what is your opinion of the page so far? It is going to be located here: List_of_countries_in_europe. In place of the redirect.

Any thoughts?

–Theeuro 14:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is Czechia in English; I'm quite glad they'll be using the short form in English now, it's quite a mess that they haven't yet got a widely used short form name yet...

I sincerely doubt that the Republika Srpska will secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina by year's end, and I'd also doubt that the UK will join the euro so soon; where did you get that information?

Apart from that, I quite like the page. Good work! :) —Nightstallion (?) 10:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Republika Srpska is not ceding from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo is. The info is public knowlege. Kosovo has submitted some paperwork to the UN for sovreign status, in the form of a request for border patrols by UN troops. They have the support of the EC. Portugal will oversee their transition as holder of the rotating presidency. Montenegro and Kosovo will begin using the euro before they are admitted into the EU because both currently use German euros resulting in escalating inflation for the German state. The UK can't join the euro until 2 years + 3 months after Kosovo and Montenegro begin using the euro; the higher than normal inflation in Germany will have a devaluating effect on the pound during the two years prior to euro adoption and this is unacceptable to the UK.

There is a sort of catch 22 going on here because Montenegro won't adopt the euro and Kosovo won't declare sovereignty until after the UK commits to joining the euro, but the UK won't commit until after Kosovo is sovereign. Basically the whole thing is to ensure the UK doesn't leave the ERM; they will be forced out if they don't soon join due to the fact that the ECB has to spend nearly €&npsp;250.000.000/ year on exchanging the pound to euro. If they are forced out, the value of the euro will tank. Germany is under a lot of pressure to control its inflation, but they can't as long as Mont. and Kos. still use their currency (technically only the German euro can be used in these areas).

Anyway, I know this because it is all a matter of public knowlege, however, a memo within the ECB (also public) rendered the connection linking all of the peices together into this giant diplomatic nightmare. The German foreign minister recently tested some waters by suggesting in public that Kosovo should be sovereign. It didn't go over very well, but the general assumption is that once Serbia demands and gets some sort of payoff, the opposition will abate.

It's all about money and ensuring the value of the euro. BTW- if the UK leaves the ERM like Denmark did, they would have to foot the bill for what the ECB has spent over the last 8 years exchanging pounds into euro- around € 2.5 billion. That debt is levied the day the UK leaves ERM and is due within 15 days or 15% is added for each day over. It may seem harsh, but it is necessary to keep the euro strong. In comparisson, Demark had to pay around € 1 million. Sweden causes around € .5 million/ year in exchange penalties for the ECB, so their situation isn't as dire.

This has the potential to become quite a mess.

–--Theeuro 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's why I didn't understand you. Kosovo will secede from Serbia, not from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yeah, I know that about Montenegro and Kosovo; I did actually not know that about the German inflation, but it's highly interesting. Do you really think that the UK will commit to joining the euro any time soon? Public opinion seems to be largely hostile, and if either Brown or Cameron become the next PM (likely, unless Milliband wins the Labour leadership election, supposing he even stands for it), I would doubt they'd make any haste to join the eurozone... —Nightstallion (?) 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I did say Bosnia. Sorry about that. It gets confusing sometimes. Did you know that Republic of Serbia and Serbian Republic are two different places?!?

Fairly recently, Blair made it virtually impossible for the UK to not adopt the euro by 2010, despite public opinion. To circumvent public opinion, Blair's government conducted a poll of corporations which turned up a 90% favorable return toward adoption. The suggestion has been made- and is being debated as part of a potential agreement- to allow Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and England to issue seperate euro coins in order to preserve the cultural connection to their currency. Personally, I don't think the ECB will go for this, but stranger things have happened. There is already a confusion factor (eurozone wide) regarding euro coin designs- introducing 9 more designs between now and 2010 will only serve to compound the problem. There would be 200 different legal tender coins in circulation! This doesn't take into account the new common design or the 2 euro commemoratives. This issue has been a steadily more intense and growing headache for the ECB.

–--Theeuro 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did know that, but it is quite confusing; "Serbian Republic" is usually left untranslated as "Republika Srpska" even in non-Serbian texts, precisely for this reason.

I didn't know that about Blair; I had heard something similar, but was not aware that the Labour Party was now in a bind to finally adopt the euro. Good news, then! Is the ECB thinking about somehow reducing the number of euro coin designs? What are the current proposals for this issue? And while we're at it -- may I ask you what the inside information on the status in Denmark and Sweden is? I have heard that Denmark is likely to adopt the euro after a new referendum, but that it was postponed due to the problems with the constitution so as to not have voters confused as to whether they're voting on the euro or on the constitution; and I've also heard that the new centre-right Swedish government would like to adopt the euro, but can't, due to public opinion being against it... What information do you have?

Thanks for the very interesting information! —Nightstallion (?) 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Republicanism in Canada

Hey Nightstallion, I've occasionally taken a look at your /notes page, since it's always filled with really interesting stuff, but I noticed that you have it stated that it's "possible" that "Canada to hold referendum on becoming a republic." and "Canada to become a republic." Well, I can tell you that I haven't heard a single word from a politician on this issue in my entire 30 years on this planet. There are, of course, individuals of the public who say "I don't care about the Queen", but actual political talk on the subject truly is non-existent. I'd suggest removing Canada from your list at least until Charles becomes King (maybe then there'll be some impetus to change). Lexicon (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's possible, if only within the next fifty years, that's why it's on the list. —Nightstallion (?) 10:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ambassador

...of Germany has made a huge mess.

On a conference in Belgrade declared that Serbia must alter its policy and accept the type of solving problems applied in the rest of Europe. He said that the understanding that Kosovo is lost and recognizing it as an independent country (under strict conditions) is the best thing for everyone, and most of all Serbia. He claimed that if Serbia does not recognize independence of Kosovo and solve this problem, new questions will open like Sanjak - he reminded that all this South Serbia was not since forever a part of Serbia like many Serbs claim, but only from 1912 and before it it wasn't Serbian. He also said that countless controversy about Serbia's territories opening might even end up with the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, which he said Hungary could ask, and has been a part of Serbia only since 1918.

This has caused public outburst, as not he made arguments that are outrageous to the Serbian politicians, but also contain a bunch (if not most) logical and unreal fallacies. The Serbian Radicals are saying that the books written in the Hague about Germany being the ringleader of a movement intent on destroying Serbia and the Serbian people has just been openly proven. And in general, the general thought in the Republic of Serbia that Germany is the only country of Europe that has been continually hostile since its creation in 1870 to presence (and the only hostile European state currently).

One of the main political leaders of Sanjak, Rassim Ljajic (President of Sanjak Democratic Party), said that the outrageous claims of the German ambassador are illogical fallacies, as Sanjak has no separatist tendencies whatsoever and that a creation of a new country at the east of it would AFAIK destabilize the region and radicalize it, strengthening the Vehabias (local Moslem terrorists).

Both the president of the Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians and the ambassador of Hungary said that the Hungarian population of Vojvodina has no separatist tendencies and that Hungary has absolutely, nor will have any expansionist pretensions on internationally-recognized borders and that it fully respects them, including Kosovo within Serbia.

The whole scandal has just moved Serbia by 1 point to the right on the Left-Right bar, isolationist on the internationalism-isolationism bar and towards "Closed" on the Open-Closed Society bar... --PaxEquilibrium 17:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Having siad that... the German ambassador was testing the waters to see what the reaction would be and to sort of 'throw open the door' of discussion about an independant Kosovo. Of course Germany does not wish to destabalize or destroy the people in the region or anything like that. They wish only to reduce their inflation rates.

Yes, Serbia is more isolationist because of this. It is all a chain of diplomatic ploys. Now Serbia will demand cash to allow Kosovo to cede. And then everyone will be happy.

Hungary can not obtain any new land or territory, except if it wishes to reform with Austria (and that has to be an 85% favorable vote in both countries to succeed), under the conventions of the EU.

This could go on forever- it is so interesting how these things tend to unfold.

--Theeuro 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, while the ambassador's comments were surprisingly tactless and undiplomatic (especially for a diplomat), I somehow doubt it will change much. Either Serbia will accept some kind of compensation for Kosovo's independence, or there'll be a big crisis. —Nightstallion (?) 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, sorry for that one! I'm multi-tasking! :(

(regarding the ambassador). The Bundestag has summoned him to Berlin and is furious by the "madness" (as Vice-president said) stated by the Ambassador that destroyed any hopes of good relations between Serbia and Germany.

He also apologized on a press conference to Serbia, stating that that which he said was an error that could be misinterpreted as highly erroneous.

Diplomatic relations between Serbia are almost closed, and it seems that Germany might fire him and replace with another.

(about Croatia) the Government is passing a Law which will authorize it to keep any data information a secret and several other mumbo-jumbo (anyone working for the state is immune). This has caused public outburst and the Social Democrat opposition called that this is an act of dictatorship.

This is not good for HDZ, especially in election times. --PaxEquilibrium 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, firing the ambassador may be the best way to go -- even if he may be right about Kosovo, he was talking nonsense about Vojvodina and Sandjak, and he was not really "diplomatic" in any sense of the word. Regarding Croatia: As we know, everything that's bad for the HDZ can only be good for us. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 14:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Diplomatic tact aside, he was reciting the wishes of the German government. Kosovo sovereingty is going to happen. The way things are going now, it may be a sort of baptism by fire. I think that's appropriate given the recent history of the region.

If good relations between Germany and Serbia can not be attained, it wasn't because of the ambassador's statements.

–--Theeuro 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. He himself stated that he had said his personal desires, that have nothing to do with diplomacy and/or tactics; and the German government is furious because of this (well, at least the Bundestag). I wouldn't be fully sure about the event, because people said in 1990 Kosovo's independence is going to happen. And 17 years have passed since then. Who knows where the wind will blow... I would not be surprised one bit if tomorrow Jesus Christ appears in Kosovo again... I'm completely convinced that the Republic of Kosovo will become a country (recognized or not) one day, but considering how things have been going so far... BTW fact is Ahtisaari's proposal for independence currently (drawing the word as an important one, anything could change) does not have enough support in the Security Council, which's decision is and will be final (then again, in 1999 it decided that the future of Kosovo is only within Serbia; in 2015 it might decide to re-attach an independent state of Kosovo to Serbia ;).

Talking about history, you're most probably referring to Milosevic's crimes. But you should first indeed study the recent history before making conclusions, for it's often not represented at all in most cases (many politicians have said that Kosovo must secede because of Milosevic's atrocities, but they don't know when, where and what happened at all). It is especially necessary in very "emotional" and hurting subjects like this one. Plus, you have to keep on mind how will this affect the rest of the world.

No, no, no. The good relations that were before the ambassador said this (he "ruined" it).

(to Nightstallion), yeah; I heard of that already, but the Kosovo Albanian political leadership is not going to accept any division whatsoever. Perhaps just like Vojislav Kostunica (:X) said: "They learn from Serbia's mistakes; if there was no autonomous province of Kosovo, no problems would've ever been; if North Kosovo gains autonomy, it would most certainly be on its way to secede from Kosovo and join Serbia". --PaxEquilibrium 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Swiss referenda

I can see why you changed UN to United Nations, but just wondering why you added the months to some of the titles - wouldn't you only use that if there were two referenda on the same issue in one year? Also, I have just had my first (highly amusing) case of personal abuse, having been accused of being an "anti-semite" that "wants to have experiences with men" (possibly as I have a straight but not narrow userbox which the abuser in question has misunderstood) :) Number 57 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mh, I believe we've done it the way I changed it up to now (check Portugal). Congrats on your first abuse! ;) —Nightstallion (?) 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops. You're right and I'm wrong; feel free to change it back to the version without months. —Nightstallion (?) 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was just writing to say there were no months in the Portugal ones! :) Number 57 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, you were absolutely right, my mistake, sorry. :) —Nightstallion (?) 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up about it. I thought only the British apologised so much! Number 57 15:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I just acknowledge readily when I'm wrong. Makes it so much easier to claim "I'm right" consistently in other cases. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 15:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I see now why I was confused about Austrian referenda - when I searched for them there seemed to be a lot, but it turns out that they are actually what we English would probably call a petition (e.g. the 1997 one on Genetically engineered food). Any idea why you guys call it a referendum? Number 57 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we don't call it a referendum -- people who have no clue about Austrian politics call it a referendum. "Petition" is actually a very good translation, but they're definitely not suited to be included in the template, yeah. —Nightstallion (?) 07:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The euro inside

I hate typing colons- so this is for responses from Bosnia and Herzegovina section.

Denmark is still in the ERM. In order to adopt the euro at any future date, they only have to say 'OK, time for the euro' and three months later they will have the euro as the only currency in the country. I've seen reports indicating some sort of change in public opinion favoring euro adoption by a fairly wide margin (68% for) in unofficial polls. I know about the referendum you're talking about... to mitigate confusion, there will be two seperate votes and the one about euro adoption will contain euro graphics and be in both English and Danish, while the vote on the constitution will be red and white and have the Danish flag in the background and be only in Danish.

Sweden has gone back and forth so many times on the euro issue that it's hard to predict what they are going to do from one month to the next. In fact, it is so bad that in December of last year, I came within 4 minutes of publishing in the Official Journal the official Swedish adoption date, timetable, strategy *and* the Swedish euro coin designs I've been sitting on for a year and a half. It was the first time I've ever seen the ECB's Press Minister as he came running into my office to recind the order to publish! It is so rediculous.

Sweden can also say 'OK time for the euro' as well, since the 5 year history of SEK meets required ERM brackets. So they will literally be in the ERM II for about three months while the transition is taking place.

There may be an ERM III for the UK and Sweden and the position of the ECB on issuing seperate banknotes by region may be relaxed to allow N. Ireland and Scotland the ability to produce these notes as long as they stay within these regions.

The feeling within the ECB is that having so many designs is that 'we're stuck with it and now we have to live with it'. So many designs were necessary in the beginning and this strategy is now a liability because of the remarkable lack of education on the euro currency that incoming tourists have. This problem is propogated by travel agencies having out of date brochures for several eurozone countries. I've seen one published in 2005 (2005!!), which showed an old Austrian 1 Schilling coin under 'Austrian Money' from where else- America!! These tourists come here expecting to see the old currencies and find only euros. So when they are given Turkish Lira and Thai coins in change which look just like euro coins, they find they can't spend them.

Generally, the ECB has a policy for all branches of every bank in the eurozone to just exchange these coins for the expected value without charge because the ECB doesn't want the tourists to feel cheated. But this has caused a loss of nearly € 5.000.000 since 2002. A war on disinformation and ignorance is currently being waged both within and without the eurozone by initiating educational programs like more flyers, posters and even classes that emphasize the differences between the various euro designs. I have the feeling that this will only provide an aspirin where morphine is required to take care of the headache. A costly but effective program involving an informal recall of all euro coins to place a clear aluminum coating and then equipping all the banks with aluminum detection has even been proposed. Get this- it's being taken seriously!!

The general feeling is that future designs of the euro coin should be very distinct from existing designs and future changes should be similar to existing designs. Austria, Germany, Belgium and Greece will have to ammend their designs before the 2008 issue- so far only Germany has submitted their new designs, but these designs were rejected because they were so different from the existing designs and too closly resembled the Greek designs. Finland had to ammend their design for the same reasons and have already done so. The ECB board came within 1 vote of rejecting the original common design of the euro because everyone knew that the design would have to change to reflect future eurozone countries that were not depicted. Luc Luycx was even against his design and the other proposed design which received 1 less vote is the one that is in use for 2007 and future issues.

If you like some interesting news about the euro, here is some more (this is all public domain, BTW)...

Iceland, Andorra and Leichtenstien are arranging to issue euros by 2008 under the same agreements that the three microstates have with the ECB.

One of the options to allow Iceland to join and keep the number of designs to a minimum is that the Icelandic, Swedish and Danish euros will then have one 'Scandanavian euro' design. If Norway decides to join (which public opinion seems to be leaning toward), they would be using this design as well.

A propostion in front of the ECB board whose vote is expected by June will disallow Monégasque and San Marinese euros to enter into general circulation anywhere in the eurozone except their respective countries. An exception to Vatican euros has been made to only allow the coins to be legal in Vatican and Rome only.

The Vatican was allowed to produce their own coins because of the Swiss Guard. They get paid in Vatican currency only. If they want to eat on their lunch break, a vatican coin wouldn't be accepted anywhere in Rome. So they are now paid in Vatican euros. Its interesting, but the guards are starting to sell their euro coins for even more than their face value. This has spiked the Italian inflation rate and there is now a cese and disist order applied to the Guard prohibiting this. Any businesses in posetion of Vatican euros must keep them seperate from other euro coins and return them to an ECB branch, which in turn sends them back to the Vatican. It seems like a bunch of red tape, but it is has a humerous element to it as well. Mostly we all just shake our heads at it.

The current proposed British euro design incorporates a latent image (similar to the Lux 2€ TOR comm, but much smaller) of the queen along side national symbols of the UK. This is the last resort if the proposal to issue four regional designs of England, Scotland, N. Ireland and England fail.

A law requiring the monarch's portrait on all banknotes can't be changed without ammending the constitution because it is more than 400 years old. As a result, UK issued banknotes will have to come from somewhere else besides England. Probably Wales will print them, but they can not be printed on English soil.

When Malta adopts the euro next year, expect to see a sharp spike in the value of the euro, since Malta's economy is roughly equal to half that of Luxembourg's, despite being about five times smaller and is the smallest country in the EU.

To keep a cultural conection with the pound sterling, the countries within the UK may issue odd denomination banknotes such as a ₤ 3.40 note which would equal 5 euro. More head shaking!!

If I think of anything else, I'll post it here.

–--Theeuro 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Thanks a lot for all that inside information! —Nightstallion (?) 18:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit "surprised" about some of the informations given here. "Surprised" may not be the good word because it's in line with what was already done, but I'm skeptical about the ideas. I speak firstly about the idea to limit the validity of coins from San Marino, Monaco and Vatican to limited areas. What's the interest to it? Those coins are very rarely seen in common circulation and are capted by collectors. They don't bother anyone and it's always a good surprise to find one. Every authomatic parking meter will accept them all over the euro zone, and an Irish shopkeeper won't spontanemously make the difference between them and commemorative Luxembourgian coins! I really can't see the reason for this idea.

The second one is about a common face for all Scandinavian countries. How can the said countries accept that?! Countries like Andorra which already uses the euro but without their own coins struggle to have their own ones. Why would this right denied to Sweden? If Germany has the right to produce 16 different 2€ coins during 16 years, why not Sweden a single one?

And what about the "unconstitutionilty" of the production in England of the English euro banknotes? The "English constitution" is made of ordinary laws and can been changed very easily, as it was done to change the composition of the House of Lords. It's what I read in Constitution of the United Kingdom.

Švitrigaila 11:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nightstallion and Theeuro, I'm a new member of Wikipedia and my name is: I love Euro. I would like to ask some questions to Theeuro, because I like very much this discussion. Here they are:

1. When do you think a referendum upon the Euro adoption in Denmark will be held?

2. What happened with the official Swedish Euro adoption date you were talking about?

3. When do you think the United Kingdom will adopt the Euro currency?

4. When do you think there will be official news upon the 2008 Euro adoption of Andorra, Iceland and Liechtenstein?

Thank you for your attention and patience.

I'm not at all comfortable answering these questions on another user's talk page. I've forwarded the discussion to my own: User_talk:Theeuro See 'The euro inside Part 2' --Theeuro 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The request of the day

Hi,

A vote here decided to move Pope Silvester II into Pope Sylvester II. I would like to move Pope Silvester I into Pope Sylvester I but I can't do it myself. Can you help me? Švitrigaila 11:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... but I forgot to ask you to change Pope Silvester into Pope Sylvester. Švitrigaila 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And done. —Nightstallion (?) 14:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You're so fast! :o) Švitrigaila 14:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Greased Lightning, da-dada, da-dada, ... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 14:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know that. Every film with a tempo faster than A Space Odyssey is to fast and furious for me. Švitrigaila 14:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't meant that film, I meant the song from Grease. —Nightstallion (?) 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything faster than a song of Jaan Tätte is too fast for me. :op Švitrigaila 14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

---

A bug report? I wrote above [[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|]]. But instead of translating that by [[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|2001: A Space Odyssey]], Wikipedia's engine wrote [[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)| A Space Odyssey]]. Is that normal? Švitrigaila 15:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. It assumes that 2001: is a namespace and then proceeds to remove it from the piped text. —Nightstallion (?) 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Red Lion

None, apparently the Heraldic Commission hasn't voiced its opinion yet. The only new element was an april's fool's joke about a triple tailed lion supposedly used by some former ruler... But I don't think that's relevant here;-) and in any case I only heard part of it (enough to determine it was a joke).--Caranorn 12:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

News

Extremists have attacked the HQ of the Sanjak Democratic Party, burning the paiting of Bori Tadic. They're allegedly from the Serbian Radical Party.

The leader of the Social Democrats of Croatia, Ivica Račan is dying on table of inoperable cancer (death is imminent). --PaxEquilibrium 17:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, that's *bad*... —Nightstallion (?) 20:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The first ones seem just like some Muslim-hating intolerant kids obsessed with Vojislav Seselj "for now". As for the latter, numerous major SDP officials are mass-leaving the political (turning their backs when most needed) and joining minor, not pretty significant left-wing parties. The current stand in popularity of SDP is less than that of HDZ (and it's now led by a woman, and women are never realized seriously in here). But who knows, perhaps Racan will return (although without his right arm and with a damaged nerve system). I think that this could develop two-prong: either SDP will fall into disarray (like it's right now), or Ivica will be remembered as a Martyr, and that could increase its popularity significantly (compare with Djidjinc's case in Serbia), but that's the less possible option. On the other side, HDZ is turning to the "old league" Tudjman-era politicians that it previously evicted and is extremely radicalizing itself (same tactic like DSS on the most recent election) and is making alliances with the minor right-wing parties (Ante Gotovina's trial in the Hague is significantly contributing to this radicalization). It seems that it could amass more than half of the total votes.

On the other side, the next Congress of the Democratic Party of Socialists in Montenegro is coming up (the most tense one since the 1997 crisis). Aside from election of new leadership, the party will change its name, removing "of Montenegro" at the end, since the Republic of Montenegro is now an independent country. Also, the announced fires and replacements will happen. Filip Vujanovic promised to Croatia to remove the *old league* politicians, and it will appear to some extent. Milo Djukanovic said that every single man in the party is over 40 years old (while most are over 50); and that they'll need "younger flesh". As a compromise of the two, Svetozar Marović together with many people will withdraw from political life. However, Milo will not withdraw and shall even remain at the head of the party. This way he'll also remove any competition. I don't now about Vujanovic, but Filip does not stand a chance to conduct the announced and if he tries it, Milo will sack him from the Party too....the Alpha mail remains... --PaxEquilibrium 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Bah, do you really think the HDZ will get a majority? Dire prospects... I doubt they'll join the EU so fast, then...

Regarding Montenegro, we'll see. At least it's not getting worse at the moment... —Nightstallion (?) 23:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The only *chance* is if the Social-Liberal-Democrat opposition unites, like the Democrat Bloc does in Serbia and ousts the Irredentists. If they don't do it, the same thing that happened the last time might happen (no one could agree for a government, SDP became weakened as per all parties in government weaken; and in the end the Conservative Liberals voted for HDZ's government proposal just to prevent the pain of new elections, giving it 50%+ of the Assembly). --PaxEquilibrium 13:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that likely? —Nightstallion (?) 14:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ISO 639-3

Hi Nightstalllion. I think we once talked about ISO 639-3. Now it is out and I would like to make a bot request. Before I do so I would like some feedback, even very short ones. Details at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#R from ISO 639 .2F missig articles. Best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. —Nightstallion (?) 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

- :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Croatian Controversy

The Thompson (band) is going to play in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This has caused a lot of controversy, especially protest from the Jewish community of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The band is neo-Nazi and Ustasha, glorifies the Holocaust, the Genocide, celebrates destruction of Serbia, the Jews, ethnic extermination of the Serbian people.

He said that he is shocked that anyone is ever offended by his songs and that the concert will be held.

The concert is supposed to be for charity and is sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church in Croatia (which was unendingly controversial when it said that there's nothing bad in the Thompson band and that it fully supports it). --PaxEquilibrium 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's a *really* sick band. —Nightstallion (?) 14:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

New Italian parties?

You wrote:

Let me just check whether I got them all:

• Democratic Party, obviously.
• The Association for the Rose in the Fist or "Socialist Constituent Assembly" or Italian Socialist Party (new).
• The two minor CD federations, Christian Democratic Federation and Federation of Christian Democrats and of the Centre.
• The liberal/reformist pact Republicans, Liberals, Reformers.
• The new neo-fascist pact between MIS, AS, FN and VN.

Are those all there currently are? —Nightstallion (?) 15:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My answer:

Let alone the two CD federations, the PRI-PLI alliance and the far right pact (all minor forces, ignored by all the Italian newspapers and media), there are two big bangs on the left:

• DS and DL are likely to form the PD, maybe along with some other minor parties such as IdV; the moderate social-democratic faction of Angius, the Labour Federation of Spini and the socialist left-wing of Mussi are likely to leave the DS in order not to enter in the PD.
• SDI, which was at the beginning the first proposer of PD, decided not to enter in it and to form a new social-democratic party with the other parties of the Socialist diaspora (NPSI, SI, Socialism is Freedom...) and with some former DS members (Lanfranco Turci, Salvatore Buglio and their Association for the Rose in the Fist, third component of RnP, Peppino Caldarola and Emanuele Macaluso). The project is open also to the groups of Angius, Spini and Mussi.

That's all. Boselli said that the new party will be named PSI, but nothing is certain, and launched the Costituente Socialista, a similar project to that of Turci, who entusiastically threw himself behind Boselli. If the party will consist only of former Socialists, it may reach the 3%, if also Angius and Spini will join it could reach the 5%, if also Mussi will join it could reach the 8%. As of today it is not clear if they will be part of the new party or not.

The new party will be neither to the right of PD nor to the left, indeed SDI is much a moderate force, undoubtely more centrist than DL. What is sure is that Boselli considers the new party as "neither to the right nor to the left, but forward PD, which is old" and to be more secular of it. Undoubtely the presence of Mussi will balance to the left the new party, but many pundits say that it is more likely that he will form a new party with Bertinotti's PRC.

You can read the Italian Democratic Socialists for more information. --Checco 15:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! And thanks again for keeping Wikipedia and me up to date on this. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Change

I never understood how political parties so drastically change.

A good example is G17+. I really do not understand how much not only the party, but even general opinion changed. Miroljub Labus received almost million of support during Presidential elections and as an un-governmental organization, G17 Plus was the very largest in ex Yugoslavia. When G17+ became a political party, it won half a million votes.

Back then in 2003, it stood for braking the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (and not creating any state union with Montenegro as per the DOS-DPS compromise) and it also even inclined that independence of Kosovo enforced by Serbia should be the best solution. Subsequently revoking the status of Vojvodina and turning to itself, Serbia could('ve) economically ran in a fast train to EU before Romania and Bulgaria, while Montenegro would not be like today - in front of Serbia - but "clutter into disarray", while peace would fully be established in Kosovo. The Democratic Opposition of Serbia alliance led by the DS although strongly supported a SerboMontenegrin state, was willing to accept some form of independence for Kosovo (that's one of the reasons why DSS left the alliance).

Today 215,000 people voted for the Liberal-Social Democrat coalition and mentions of independence of Kosovo are considered outrageous in the mainstream, and President Boris Tadic (ringleader of DS) said that he will never sign any edict of recognition of independence of Kosovo. G17+ after the secession of Montenegro totally changed and became economic-centric (totally abandoning the revolutionary democratic and liberal attitude it had) and with the depart of Miroljub Labus, it indirectly supported DSS' plan for "more than autonomy, less than independence" plan for Kosovo and the only mention was regarding Serb and Roma refugees after 1999, including the 2004 March Pogrom. In 2002/3 many of my friends in Serbia said that Kosovo is forever lost for Serbia, and some of them even opposed the state with Montenegro; today they all say Serbia can never give up Kosovo and will not lose it. Some a lot of them even despise Montenegrins. What the heck happened, if you can answer me?

It now with most of their leadership gone (except for Mladjan Dinkic and his closest friends) has fell to a strong, but minor political party in the democratic bloc - just see this year's election.

BTW, an indictment has been filed against Mladjan Dinkic. Their revolutionary centrism of economy that revived the Dinar has now become a terrifying money-money-money obsessed corporation. Mladjan Dinkic is suspected for stealing millions from the Serbian government, and the vast economic renewal for which he and Kostunica are responsible - is a cover-up (not made up though) for the huge damage done to the Serbian economy. I actually do not know how to explain it to you properly anymore... --PaxEquilibrium 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. That sounds more than horrible. Based on the info from 2003, it would indeed have been possible for Serbia to join with or shortly after Bulgaria and Romania... Sad to see such an opportunity lost to history... I sincerely hope everything will turn out for the best, but I don't really know how that would be possible currently. —Nightstallion (?) 20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I blame the ignoring of the west in the crisis with Zoran Djindjic's assassination, the west take no initiative and Kostunica pulled off with the "emancipation" and "rehabilitation" I was talking about on this talk page several weeks ago.

Does it happen elsewhere in Europe (such oddities)? Like with G17+, DPS, SNP. --PaxEquilibrium 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm fairly certain every country has its share of political idiots, but I can't think of a parallel situation right now, no... —Nightstallion (?) 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm more interested in such drastic overall, to call them "national" changes of political situations and statuses (like Germany in 1937 and Germany in 2007, but not taking so long - practically instant). Is this an exception? --PaxEquilibrium 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, how drastic do you want them? The black-blue coalition in Austria drastically shifted the political centre to the right in Austria technically, since the ÖVP went very much to the right and the FPÖ has always been extremist, while the SPÖ shifted into the centre; Italy has had a MAJOR political scandal with Tangentopoli and Mani pulite in the early 1990's; it was a very big upset for the UK when they had to leave the ERM due to currency speculations to which the pound fell; and so on... —Nightstallion (?) 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Euro referendum

Hi Nightstallion. Thanks for your post. You are quite correct, nobody has called any referendum in Denmark, and I've heard no rumours in that regard. I also find such a scenario most unlikely. Given the content, I prefer to use my own talk page, so you can find a more detailed reply there. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I've posted a reply on my talk page. Valentinian ^{T / C} 06:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You know the drill by now :) Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)