User talk:DSuser

Non-free use disputed for Image:ASCLogoMed384dpiJPEG.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ASCLogoMed384dpiJPEG.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

 * }

Re: VETËVENDOSJE
Well it says in the page - it means "NO NEGOTIATIONS!" in Albanian.

Yes, relatively spontaneous. But do not expect any major outbreak - the situation already doesn't look nice, with the 'Self-determination! movement' members publicly executing puppets of members of the Kosovar Albanian negotiating team in town squares and attacking Provisional Institutions of Self-Government's temporary Parliament in Pristina, it's pretty much heated up down there - so just expect continual increasing of unrest at a proportional pace (based upon the stalling, which is it seems the Serbian politicians' aim).

The threat of para-military armed forces is present, but it's absolutely minimal at best (currently at least). The largest thing that we could expect is a repetition of the 2004 anti-Serb riots in Kosovo, when mobs of 50,000 furious Albanians armed with basic weapons, Molotovs and pipes, went to attack the Serb enclaves. That's the highest thing expectable, and I personally do not expect a deja vu.

I think you are referring to the Kosovo Liberation Army. The KLA was supposed to be demilitarized in 1999-2001 according to the wishes of the United Nations Security Council (Resolution 1244), but fears of reaction had made the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (see Kosovo Force) endorse a thing different from the decisions of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo - the KLA was rehabilitated and transformed into KPC (Kosovo Protection Corps), which became some sort of an *civilian army* of Kosovo. However, a minor extremist bit left and (re)formed (a new) "Kosovo Liberation Army". This KLA (only a four-digit-strong group), working for the 'Self-determination!' movement, is aimed at fighting against the UN peacekeeping forces attempting to drive them off, seeing them as (foreign) occupiers. So far only several international community representatives were injured, and this KLA was mostly limited to blowing up UN cars and connections. --PaxEquilibrium 15:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Rugova
Yes that's right DSuser, I thought it would be in your interest too as you also have a preference for historical accuracy and internationally recognised entities. Curiously enough, I added that last night, but only now as you sent me this message did I make a brief responce on the Rugova talk section. I was just clarifying that although things were temporarily different during that time, I am happy to keep his details as you and I have left them. Evlekis 09:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote
Thanks for informing me, I voted about should Kosovo be added to the state list and wrute my opinion. Cheers Ringwraith46 18:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo elections
Please comment on my suggestion at Template talk:Serbian local elections. Number  5  7  08:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo
For now it is not under Serbia.Thank you.--Taulant23 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo
What you think of these than ;the Serbian province of Kosovo to the northeast, In my opinion is better for all.Please let me know.Thank you.--Taulant23 18:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For me lets use the Serbian province of Kosovo to the northeast.--Taulant23 19:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

EU entry vs Commonwealth in several lists
The introduction of the EU entry is based on following arguments:


 * a) Country like entity: Common market, common policies, common institutions, bodies, agencies, election every 5 years and a European parliament as well as a EU court of justice, common currency Euro, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate ,-Anthem, EU-Citizenship, one voice in WTO
 * b) already ranked in several other media and statistics like CIA WorldFactBook, IMF data sheet, Wikipedia List of countries by GDP (PPP) etc.
 * c) several other entries are included with unclear state or country definition like the souvereignityOverseas territories, Vatican and many others
 * d) Note that the inclusion of the EU is granted to its sui generis status and can not advocate the inclusion of Opec, Nato, African Union, Commonwealth, Uefa and others. The degree of a state like entity and its characteristics make this a singular case. Lear 21 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Lear in this case. DSuser, are you okay with including the EU as a singular special case, or would you like to discuss this with other people at a single central place? Spreading the discussion out over numerous talk pages doesn't really make sense, so I'd prefer it if we could discuss this centrally, if necessary. Thanks! — Nightstallion 16:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah agree. Where's best? List of countries? Lists of countries? DSuser 16:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have proposed European Union, but maybe it's best to create a page just for this discussion in some subspace (like Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries)? — Nightstallion 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you put it in the EU talk page, the outcome will be biased to those with a strong interest in the EU, will it not? DSuser 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, opponents of the European Union are drawn to that page, as well. Do you think it's a problem if the question is discussed mainly by people with an interest in the EU (whether pro-EU or anti-EU) as opposed to entirely disinterested people? You just brought as an argument that Number57 had a lack of knowledge about Kosovan/Kosovo ;) issues, so I think it'd be better to discuss this with people who know the European Union, but I'd like to hear your opinion, too, so that you're satisfied with the basics of the debate, as well. — Nightstallion 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With you on that. We should try and bring in various 'constituencies'. Perhaps there's some top level lists discussion that we could link to from the EU page, the lists we debating, the 'list of countries' talk page etc? DSuser 16:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that might work. So we create Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries and link to the debate from Talk:European Union, Talk:List of countries, Talk:Lists of countries, and other relevant pages (most sensibly at least all those where we've started discussing this already). I'd propose that we collect pro and con arguments first so that we have a sensible starting point, and then officially start the debate by linking to it... Okay? — Nightstallion 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll chip in as soon as I can? DSuser 16:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. How's this for a start? Feel free to amend my arguments, I tried to present the case as neutrally as possible. (And I still think the Commonwealth was a bad example; ASEAN or CARICOM would have much better cases. ;)) — Nightstallion 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, looks good. I'll try and put some effort into it; I'll try and keep the relative sizes of the arguments about equal. DSuser 16:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good! I didn't mean for the first pro to be so much longer than the contra, but the list of characteristics of the EU simply turned it a bit longer. I'd say we simply keep refining it until we're both happy and then open it to general discussion? — Nightstallion 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, absolutely. I'll put some pro stuff in then we bounce it back and forth. DSuser 16:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose you meant contra, but yep, sounds good. :) — Nightstallion 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I just wanted to state that it's very pleasant to work these two issues out with you in such a well-ordered and structured way; at first, I had my doubts and was afraid that you would not be willing to have an objective discussion, but apparently I was quite mistaken about that. So, thanks for being willing to work this (and Kosovo/Kosovan) out so peacefully! — Nightstallion 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Hopefully we get good quality contributors rather than people just voting their preferences. Nothing like a good argument, though...!


 * Current draft: agree with the point on the EC, but perhaps better wording on the Reform Treaty as that's far from ratification? Also (minor points): 1) I don't think we have common licence plates (just the flag on some of them, and not all at that) 2) can we make that 'not all' rather than 'not yet all' on the Euro front - assuming all will eventually is speculation (and we might speculate that certain southern European countries might even drop out...).


 * We need a way of covering the 'if EU, why not X, Y and Z' into the lists. Where do you want to do that? A separate item? DSuser 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mh, still, up to now every treaty has in some form be ratified sooner or later. I think by stating that the Reform Treaty *plans* to transfer it, we've established that it's theoretical? Regarding the license plates, they *are* common -- all of them have the European stars on the left side on a blue rectangle with the country code below it, so there is a common standard. Regarding the euro -- well, as I've said: all except Denmark and the UK *HAVE* to adopt the euro, so I think it's okay like that, but we could drop the yet if you feel strongly about it. — Nightstallion 18:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the last point, I'd say we make a new one. — Nightstallion 18:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, just seen the Euro points - agree. Just read the article on the plates - they are optional in a few member states - minor point, happy to leave it. On the Reform Treaty how about 'Reform Treaty would (when ratified)...' or some such. And as to every treaty being ratified - not as if the Treaty on the Constitution got ratified is it...! DSuser 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I add in a brief sentence on including other bodies in the main point? DSuser 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not know that about the license plates, I just assumed they were standardised... My mistake, will rewrite that part a bit, and will gladly also change the Reform Treaty part. (Don't tell the eurosceptics or the Brits, but the Reform Treaty is functionally identical to the Constitution, so I'd claim the Constitution will sort-of be ratified, anyway; but you're right, the proposals for political and defence communities in the sixties were not ratified, got me there. ;)) I'd keep the precedent problem to its own paragraph, but if you like, we could establish a brief index once we've assembled a few more points...? — Nightstallion 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That all looks great, Nightstallion: great job and very balanced. How are we going to ask people to vote? Simply Include/exclude? Or perhaps Include/Exclude/Note outside list? I suppose they need to take into account the three sets of arguments, but I guess we can leave them to express their own opinions on the inclusion of other entities. DSuser 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm quite happy with it, too. Seems very well-balanced between our two opinions. I'd say we should ask for "include/exclude/special note outside list", but we may want to differentiate between those fields were including the EU as a single entity makes a lot of sense (economics, currencies, defence) and those were it only makes partial sense (area, population, list of countries, other lists); I'd personally vote for "include in some cases, special note in other cases". So, what do we do? Propose a few sets of answers we consider sensible? — Nightstallion 18:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, just thinking about the same problem myself. I'd generally prefer to see it included for specific cases (e.g. Foreign currency reserves or exports) but excluded or annotated for the rest. But our 'special cases' don't align. I don't know: perhaps ask people for their incl/excl/note votes and any specific exclusions? But then we could end up with a mess of different votes, and we won't be able to agree what the consensus is. Perhaps the votes are Exclude (except for foreign reserves and exports/imports), Include (in many cases but note it some), and a third one (Note everywhere? Include everywhere?)? I doubt there will be many 'exclude everywhere' or 'include everywhere' votes, and they can always make themselves clear. DSuser 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And I think we'd have to rename any list which it did appear in, away from 'country'. DSuser 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say we give the following options:


 * generally include, but make a note outside of the table if it is controversial
 * generally make a note outside of the table, but include in special cases
 * generally exclude, but include in special cases
 * Would that be okay with you? We would have to define the special cases separately afterwards, unless it's immediately obvious which ones it should be. I don't think we'll have to rename the lists away from "country", as we're only including the EU as a very special one-off, and all the other items in the list will still be countries. Okay? — Nightstallion 18:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes that looks good. Perhaps make sure they know that to vote 'Include' means include (with the exemptions above), unless they specify otherwise. Then they only have to write a one-word vote. DSuser 18:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say we ask them to vote for "include with exceptions", "note outside of the table with exceptions" or "exclude with exceptions", then it should be absolutely clear. Is it okay if we make the final start to the process only on 2 August? I won't be at home for most of 1 August, and should be working on something now instead of wikipedia-ing. ;) — Nightstallion 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Go for it, and good to have worked with you on this. DSuser 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! I agree. Always nice to discuss issues in a civilised manner (doesn't happen often enough on WP, if you ask me...) — Nightstallion 19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

EU and UK
I think the Brits (being one) have noticed the point about the Constitution! It all comes down to how well Brown can resist the pressure for a referendum. I'd put it at 50/50 given his past record. DSuser 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's not as if people made a secret of the fact that it's quite the same content; frankly, I'd prefer to see a referendum on the issue (actually, in *all* countries), since it's long overdue that the UK had a sincere and sensible debate about European integration. Apart from that and generally speaking, European integration can't continue forever without the approval of the people; while that has been sensible for the first thirty or fourty years of the EC's existence, it's absolute horror now. We'll see where it goes. — Nightstallion 18:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem in the UK is, if there is a referendum the results (if sufficiently against, which is possible) might lead to massive pressure for renegotiation of our membership, which would not be pretty and could lead to exit. DSuser 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that might be a problem, but if there is no referendum, then the anti-EU feeling in the UK will only rise (thanks mostly to a few populist newspapers, in my opinion -- it's the same in Austria with the Kronenzeitung, BTW)... It's not easy what to do, actually. It's not even clear what the Brits don't like about the EU specifically -- they mostly dislike the image which the gutter press newspapers have given the EU in the UK, not what the EU actually is... sighs — Nightstallion 18:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's an emotional/outlook thing as well. We've never bought the ever closer union thing. I think we'd just prefer, temperamentally, to sit on the sidelines. And have one foot in the Atlantic, of course. But that's probably a more fundamental problem that agreeing or disagreeing with any particular balance of power between the UK and Brussels. And you're right, every day it goes unresolved, the more the argument will be that we are being 'pulled' into something we don't want, which makes people even more against (fuelled by the press). Personally, I think it would be better for everyone if the UK was allowed a minimal relationship (trade? some justice issues? perhaps a bit of common foreign policy?) whilst remaining a member; other member states can press on. If that's not an option, then the press can really push the argument for leaving. DSuser 18:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mh, yeah, possibly, but I've read a lot of books and analyses which claim that this outlook difference arises from the mistaken viewpoint (mistaken according to the analyses) that the UK "would have been better of concentrating on the Commonwealth" instead... If the UK is *really* fed up with the EU, it would probably have to leave and rejoin EFTA instead, but leaving the EU would entail severe legal and political complications, as too much has been united over a long period of time to simply untangle it within a year or two... Still, we'll see where it leads. Either the British mindset as regards Europe changes in the next decade or two, or we'll have a problem... Frankly, I'd prefer to have the UK as part of the EU (even if that means waiting a bit longer for more integration inititiatives), but it's not something anyone but the British themselves have influence on, anyway. — Nightstallion 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting your message
I am sorry for deleting your message. I was patrolling the recent changes with the newly installed antivandal tool when your edit came up. I thought it was on a Mainspace page, so I reverted it. I apologize once more, and if not already taken care of, I will change my edits.  J- stan  Talk 16:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * J-stan fixed his fudge-up, and I put in my 2 cents on the Kosovo/Kosovan/Kosovar discussion (and then put in another 2 cents after I reviewed the OED). 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This one is DSuser's [[Image:WikiThanks.png|43px|left|WikiThanks]] WikiThanks for being concerned enough to include me in the Kosovo discussion that you put in the effort to correct J-stan.  21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kosovo
A minor point remains to be agreed on: You stated that you would like to keep the discussion open for a few weeks, to give people on holiday a chance to state their opinion. I've made the experience that it is usually a good idea to state a *clear* deadline before, so I've proposed a date (19 August); could you please give your opinion on that deadline, and either state your acceptance or propose another one if you don't like it? Thanks! — Nightstallion 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah sounds good, agreed. We might miss a few over August, but hey. I've just seen that Envoy202 (reliably neutral in the past) has contributed but not signed: how do we add that 'this contribution was from x' line? DSuser 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just did that, we have unsigned for that. — Nightstallion 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, but be careful not to be accused for WP:CANVASSing. Nikola 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As it is not a vote, anyway, and we'll have to arrive at some kind of intermediate consensus whatever the actual results are, I think canvassing is not such a big issue here... Or so I'd like to believe. ;) — Nightstallion 23:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey: DSuser
Thanks for the invite on the Kosovo topics I have made and left my opinions on the matter/'s. I was away from Wiki for a bit, which is why I was unable to reply sooner, sorry about that. :(

Hope to hear from you soon, Regards Bluewings 3:07, July 31 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes on Kosovo. Sorry it took a little while to respond! &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

ANI
That isn't exactly what I meant... but what I wrote was rather ambiguous wasn't it? On a completely unrelated note, you seem to get involved in quite a bit of Balkan article editing. Any experience with Dalmatia?--Isotope23 talk 19:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Very little, and sadly, given how beautiful it is. I've only worked in Serbia, Kosovo and Montenegro so that's where I tend to contribute. Funny that I completely misinterpreted your suggestion - definitely too Balkan. DSuser 19:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Hmmm, well I had just gotten done looking into edit warring over Dalmatia related articles and been accused of some sort of POV/nationalism/etc... so maybe there was a little unintended "secret police" in my suggestion.--Isotope23 talk 19:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi from HxSeek
Hi DSuser. I see we have some common interests pertaining to the Balkan history, etc. I look forward to continue working with you. I think we have a long 'battle' ahead of us if we are going to keep the truth in issues. Hxseek 01:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo issues
Thanks for a notification. However when I returned back home the first issue had already been closed and regarding the second issue there's no difference for me whether Kosovo or Kosovan is used. Alæxis¿question? 08:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)