User talk:Nightstallion/σ

Montenegro
Remember the Vijesti incident? How its journalists were regularly threatened and beaten and how Ivanovic (chief editor) accused Djukanovic to be behind it all? Well, the case is over. The battered Zeljko Ivanovic has to pay one million euros to Milo Djukanovic for 'verbally falsely accusing an esteemed statesman'. The appeal will probably not work, so they shall complain over to the Strasbourg. The alternative is near bankruptcy, leading to the government's takeover of the media. Its recent establishment of a TV station alludes to a more rapid move by Djukanovic, as the media are (again) getting more liberal and out of control. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't they easily be able to beat Milo at the ECHR? — Nightstallion 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Knowing MNE, they won't manage to get to it.
 * By the way, the Movement for Changes is once again changing its policies and returning back to the pre-Constitution non-compromise with Djukanovic. They demonstratively with SNP CG and SL left yesterday the session when the proposal for the oath speech for President's inauguration was adopted. The three will also not be present at the actual inauguration tomorrow, Medojevic also expressed some form of remorse for his not fully successful political acts and called for restoration of cooperation within the Unified Opposition.
 * P.S. Radovan Karadzic too. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How can they not get to it? Once they are turned down by the country's highest court, they can appeal to the ECHR whether Milo likes it or not...
 * So the opposition is unified against Milo again? — Nightstallion 23:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We shall see.
 * Except the Liberals, who support Vujanovic and after this presidential election no longer exist as a political party...no one expects them (neither do they themselves) to keep their one seat after 2009. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Well, I hope we get rid of Milo the regular way soon -- he's too young for me to wait until he dies of natural causes. ;) — Nightstallion 08:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And as for Bosnia, Miroslav Lajcak is becoming increasingly popular amongst the Serbs and hated amongst the Bosniaks. Bosniak leaders are even considering bringing the Croats on their side against Lajcak, who is deemed as far too pro-Serbian by them. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What's he done that the Bosniaks dislike? — Nightstallion 08:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Over the years it is the Serb politicians who were a destabilizing factor in BH and they were mostly on strike, but Lajcak's recent international reports differ greatly. He stated that Srbska's call for independence is just words and just a reaction to the constant nationalist rhetoric coming from Bosniac politicians, who openly call for RS's cancellation. He commended the attempts of decrease of the strong Serb nationalism in Banja Luka by the new Social Democrat cause and greatly criticized the Sarajevo-based Bosniak leaders, calling them threats to BH's stability. He deems that their political representatives do not call for unification of the country, but in specific are aggressive to RS calling its abolition in specific. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. And, do you agree? — Nightstallion 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that doesn't matter, the point is that he is making too dangerous moves, might be understood provoking and there are 48% Bosniacs and only 37% Serbs. When a significant SDA party leader notes that he should move the OHR from Sarajevo to Banja Luka... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. Well, the result will be that both major ethnicities don't really like him, but that the opinion regarding the OHR evens out in all of the country, whereas before, Serbs were very much against it and Bosniaks very much in favour, no? — Nightstallion 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes.
 * Is that good? For instance, the UNMIK tends to satisfy the Albanians as much as it can, but is hated by the minorities. With a 80+% of support amongst the population, it had no greater problem in administering. BH's multi-ethnic situation makes things harder. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if it would unite the peoples of Bosnia in opposition to the OHR... ;) — Nightstallion 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In 5 municipalities SRS, DSS, NS, SPS and others form local governments. By the end of the week the Radicals and the two coalitions shall complete in Belgrade. This outright means only support and no participation for G17+ definitely. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean precisely about G17+? — Nightstallion 12:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Only parliamentary support and no participation.
 * BTW, SPS-PUPS-JS today terminated on Palma's proposal negotiations with DSS-NS and SRS on the grounds of too big differences regarding the SAA, about to start them with DS. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * YES! :) — Nightstallion 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Montenegrin Passports shall be in Latin, while IDs default in Latin, with the exception that they will be made in Cyrillic if it's the exclusive desire of the Citizen.

Pro-Serbians yell out again... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, just a logical extension of the language issue. — Nightstallion 18:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How does it then work to the Constitution and other facts that Cyrillic is the official script, and then Latin next to it, when Latin is used as some sort of a sole script of a (yet unstandardized) Montenegrin language, and then Cyrillic plainly treated as a minority language (members of minorities can choose to have their basic info parts of IDs written in their native language, e.g. in Albanian)? Even Medojevic protested, claiming that this is a manner to further separate the two currents in the country, so that officials would know who is who. Before there were numerous incidents of people not employed or fired from work because they were for Serbia, a Cyrillic script in the ID is a perfect way to find out and discriminate (either way). The fact that this is not allowed for passports also means that this is internally for Montenegro itself. And in the end, this would most probably force many sovereignist Montenegrins who favor Cyrillic to opt the Latin ID, precisely because of fear of getting the confusion, right? Is it an attempt to replace the dominating script with another, or not? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I was saying -- a logical extension of trying to establish a Montenegrin language. Not that I like the way he's doing it, for precisely the reasons you've just stated. — Nightstallion 06:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This just came in, a witness from the coastal city of Bar that witnessed for B92 on its research on Serbian Football Mafia was hours ago assaulted in his house, his cheek was pierced and jaw broken, and his head pounded greatly. He claims amnesia and does not remember who attacked him, but also claims he had forgotten everything regarding the mafia. While most neighbors claim they heard nothing, one claims it was actually the police that broke in. --PaxEquilibrium (talk)
 * Ouch. sighs — Nightstallion 06:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Forza Italia, again
The Forza Italia issue is here again between me and C mon. I think that it is unlogical to state that Forza Italia's primary ideology is "Conservatism", as its successor party, The People of Freedom, is liberal-conservative. --Checco (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind to intervene in talk page? I found many source which caracherize Forza Italia as a liberal-conservative party (obviuosly all in different languages from Italian, as here in Italy is frequently regarded as a liberal, christian-democratic and even "liberal-socialist" party). I would like anyway to move those refs from the infobox to the text and also to simply the ideology in the infobox. Usually we use to list different ideologies one after the other, why do we need such complication in this case (and also in The People of Freedom and the Union for a Popular Movement)? --Checco (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I could live with liberal-conservative, but I don't want to enter the discussion yet again. — Nightstallion 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of sources now and, in general, I don't understand why these three parties (FI, PdL and UMP) should have such complicated ideology characterizations in the infoboxes. In any case, I respect your decision of not entering the discussion again, but I think also that C mon is a little bit biased on the issue and it is difficult to discuss in this way. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ICTY
...just opened another sealed charge regarding the Haradinaj case.

It officially asked the UNSC to prolong its mandate until the trials of Karadzic and Mladic are over, as it is expiring very soon. The request is particularly interesting, as it would also enable the court to file new charges, a dream of the young Belgian lawyer fulfilled, which the ICTY could do only until the end of 2004.

P.S. Saw the EuroVision? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Likely to be granted?
 * No, I couldn't find a TV station which broadcast it -- will watch the final on Saturday, though. Anything interesting in the first semi-final? — Nightstallion 12:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlikely.
 * Nope, except that I turned out right when I said that they didn't need such a huge construction. They've built up the largest thing so far to be used in EuroVision, and it turned out as I thought - it was almost half empty. As much as amusing is the local peoples' megalomania for greatness (see the Temple of Saint Sava, one of the greatest world's religious structures), illusions aside, it's quite damaging financially to the common folk.
 * Oh and the Serbian song is Kosovo-inspired... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops.
 * Yeah, I knew that... sighs — Nightstallion 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Major party purges in DSS, Vojislav Kostunica is practically the sole person who was at the top between 1992 and 2000. Old school DSS is quite. There was no Board or General Assembly decision, the party bodies do not even meet at all (possibly because of fear of non-ratification of a coalition with the Radicals, or at least a stalwart opposition). Kostunica has become with his clique the sole body of the party.

In the negotiations, the Radicals agreed that they can have the seat of Prime Minister, the Ministries of Finances, Internal Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Education, Kosovo-Metohija and the Information Agencies, which is more than he had before. :D He has 8% of the parliament's deputies!!! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So DSS now mainly consists of Kostunica? — Nightstallion 07:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and several covered up Radicals like Slobodan Samardzic and others like him who joined the party in this millennium in an effort to get as much post as they can through him. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, basically the party doesn't really have much of a future any more, does it? Seems to me the anti-Europeans would be joining SRS now and the pro-Europeans (if there any) either DS or G17+ or SPS... — Nightstallion 10:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Old school DSS founder Vladeta Jankovic is out of the picture. When asked, he stated that he would sooner commit suicide than DSS go with SRS, because - pardon me, but for dramaticizatio I shall quite - Seselj has countless times attacked his father and verbally "fucked his mother". On the other hand, the latest (100th) book of Vojislav Seselj is called "Political Partnership of Whore Del Ponte and Whore Del Kostunica". When asked, Kostunica (who was in 2001 over in Washington, practically licking Condoleeza Rice's cheeks and hugging George Bush, and drinking together with Javier Solana champagne as well as exchanging jokes in 2003 in Brussels) completely ignores this. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, does that mean Kostunica is nearing his political end? :) — Nightstallion 13:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, Kostunica's passing technical government has just officially condemned yesterday's scandalous statement of Vojislav Seselj from the Hague (that the murderers of Zoran Djindjic deserve the praise and glory of assassins of Franz Ferdinand and other great assassinations in Serbian history). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At least something... — Nightstallion 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Vojislav Kostunica announced considerations of withdrawal from political life in an effort to save the party, should he fail to form the new government. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * YES! :) — Nightstallion 11:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The event would be a savior from fraction onto two parties, one pro-European and another pro-Radical, since the division is already starting to be noticeable. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the party really have a future, with or without Kostunica? — Nightstallion 14:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine it without him...DS and SRS are led by their policies, DSS is symbolized solely by Kostunica's character...
 * BTW, check out the two pics on the Vojislav Kostunica article. :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So that means either the party splits and dies, or Kostunica retires and the party dies? — Nightstallion 14:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Or Kostunica becomes the new-old Prime Minister and it lives on together with SRS, SPS and NS in a coalition that keeps running together on all levels and continually winning known as the "Serb List"... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You think so? — Nightstallion 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alleanza Nazionale.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Alleanza Nazionale.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbian parties
I would like to ask to both PaxEquilibrium and Nightstallion some information about Serbian parties.

I was asking myself where some parties have gone. Here you have a list:
 * Serbian Renewal Movement (is it with the Democratic Party?)
 * Serbian Democratic Renewal Movement (is it with the Democratic Party?)
 * Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians (is it called Hungarian Coalition now, true?)
 * Christian Democratic Party of Serbia
 * Liberals of Serbia
 * Social Democratic Union
 * Social Democratic Party
 * Social Democracy

Thank you. --Checco (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * SPO is in coalition with the For a European Serbia of the Democratic Party, yes. It will have several seats (four or more) in the parliament and one Ministry
 * SDPO is no longer in the national political life, only a fraction [one of its two Presidents, the Mayor of Kragujevac] as an individual on G17+'s list in the European Coalition, will be an MP
 * No, the party is the core party of a Coalition of four ethnic Hungarian political parties. The other three are the Democratic Party of Vojvodina Hungarians, the Democratic Fellowship of Vojvodina Hungarians and the Hungarian Civic Alliance. It's an all-out ethnic Hungarian minority political alliance, also supported by the Neo-Nazi Juvenile Movement 64 Counties, among others, this minority Coalition is gathered by the success of their presidential candidate back from the presidential election
 * For DHSS it's completely th same as the last time, on LDP's list, one guaranteed place for its leader
 * No activity from LS
 * Check under DHSS
 * Called the people to go out and vote freely, expressed that there is no room for SD in the political life "of the false dilemma between neoliberalism (DS) and nationalism (SRS)"


 * Done. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We still need an article on the Hungarian Coalition... — Nightstallion 16:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, almost all articles about Serbian parties need to be updated... --Checco (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Five more questions: --Checco (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * can you explain better the fate of SDP and SDU? I did not understand PaxEquilibrium's answer...
 * is the League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina with DS?
 * where has Democratic Alternative gone? Did it merge with another party?
 * where have the People's Movement of Kosovo and the Liberal Party of Kosovo gone?
 * what do the Serbians in Kosovo, who once supported the Coalition "Return", vote in Kosovan Assembly elections?


 * You mean SDPO? The Serbian Democratic Renewal Movement didn't run this time as a party. It is a two-President political party and has collapsed into 2 fractions. One of the two Presidents (the Mayor of Kragujevac) was on the European Coalition's list as a member of G17+ and has a guaranteed seat. The Social Democratic Union ran on the list of the Liberal Democratic Party, just like the last time. Its President will receive one seat, as the last time (in 2007). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually meant the Social Democratic Party... what happened to it? And what about the other four questions? --Checco (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm getting to them, don't worry. ;) The Democratic Alternative merged into it and took SDP over. SDP is now inactive as a political party.


 * So far anyone could get up a political party. Last year a new law was passed, demanding a total of ten thousand signatures for registration, and all had to do that. It ticked off an abundance of tiny political parties. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And what about the League of Vojvodina Social Democrats and Kosovo? --Checco (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The League of Social Democrats comprises the coalition For a European Serbia together with Democratic Party, G17 Plus, Serbian Renewal Movement and Sanjak Democratic Party.
 * The Liberal Party of Kosovo no longer exists as a political party, and as for the People's Movement, I have no knowledge of it.
 * They do not. Serbs, Goranis, and in general most minorities, boycott Kosovar elections and institutions as the Albanians in turn boycott Serbian. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. During the last two days I read many article on Serbian, Montenigrin and Kosovar parties and I saw that almost all of them need wikification and update. Would you do it? --Checco (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I'll put it on my list, but I've got a million things on it currently, I can't even find the time to write Hungarian Coalition on Nightstallion's request. :( --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just got the rest of the info, the Liberal Party of Kosovo ran on the list of the Democratic League of Kosovo, but it received no seat in the parliament. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't stress yourself! Just do it when you've got time and want to do it. :) — Nightstallion 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In general we should organize our work in a better way: there are a lot of countries, whose articles about parties are far from being updated. Serbia and Montenegro are just two examples. --Checco (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: the People's Movement of Kosovo doesn't participate in Kosovar institutions and boycotts them all in every way. They only come to the public during demonstrations and when they have to give statements. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi there, once again.

This time I write to give you a BIG THANKS for your support and a HUGE APOLOGY for all the trouble created with my contributions in non-numismatics related articles. I was honestly just trying to bring more traffic to the commemorative coins articles (which for me is, obviously, fascinating), but after a lot of thoughts I have realized that there is any sort of Wikipedians out there. Hence I have changed my views.

I will continue putting information here and there of commemorative coins as long as is notable and relevant enough, but I will not fight any more if the content is removed or changed. I might try in the talk page to ask for a consensus, but will not die for it. Instead I will concentrate all my efforts in trying to finish the "Euro gold and silver commemorative coins" series; which is already in a very good shape, thanks to people like you.

BTW, I have proposed Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) for peer review, hoping that can be promoted to a featured article. The final goal will be to create a Euro Coins Collector's Portal with all the series and information from articles that you have contributed, and (if possible) get it promoted to a featured Portal. If you are interesting in helping in this process, please comment here. I hope it gets promoted, and after this learning process, I am planning to propose immediately Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Ireland) and Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria), which are almost completed from my stand point.

Once again thank for your support. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep up the good work! :) — Nightstallion 10:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
The United Nations-sponsored Brussels-based International Association of Democratic Lawyers yesterday issued its newest resolution in Tokyo. It condemned the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo and its recognition by a number of Countries, deeming it contradicting to the Charter of the United Nations and the Helsinki Final Act.

Serbia vetoed adoption of a resolution at the Summit of the Process and Cooperation of countries of Southeast Europe in Bulgaria, which could be interpreted as if Kosovo is independent. They also stopped the Foreign Minister of Kosovo from addressing it. After the UNMIK representer gave him the word, they demonstratively left the Summit, but also in the room only the Albanian foreign minister remained together with the Kosovar. Serbia sent an official demand to Ban Ki Mun to replace that UNMIK emissary.

After this, and the recent joint call for new negotiations of Russia, China and India, Vuk Jeremic announced that next to the call for opinion of the International Court of Justice, a draft resolution is being prepared for the UN General Assembly. Jeremic stated that it will include some form of condemnation of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence and its recognition by a number of countries, also calling for new negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'nods And, what do you think will be the result? — Nightstallion 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's far too early to disposition the strengths of the blocs at this moment in the UN, ask me again in several months. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * nods — Nightstallion 19:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Trial run on ITN reform proposal
I have now proposed a one-week trial run for the ITN reform proposal at Template talk:In the news. Please comment there. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

War
Tomislav Nikolic announced the possibility of a new war in Europe, if Pristina becomes closer to Tirana. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just what we needed... — Nightstallion 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

EULEX
Still no consensus on it in the UN. This might bring to its delaying, for at least three months, the Slovenian EU Presidency reports. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussing over UMIK's status after 15 June 2008 - the day when the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo comes in act and a new reality is created with the crucial moment of Kosovo de facto turning into a country - UNMIK brought the decision that there will be no change after all. Most expected that it would decide to transfer authority to the EULEX and only remain at the top, serving solely as a representer for Kosovo in international politics. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Well, that can wait. — Nightstallion 06:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Democratic Union logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Democratic Union logo.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Presevo
A huge secret weapons stash was uncovered by the Serbian police in the municipality of Presevo, enough to arm a small army. Rifles, machine guns, mines, pistols, mine throwers, hand grenades and a lot of ammunition were discovered along with KLA uniforms and Kosovar, Albanian and American flags. Two members of a local terrorist unit were arrested, indicted for committing raiding attacks across southern Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very, very stupid by the Albanians, assuming it wasn't planted. Was it legit or a plant? — Nightstallion 19:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it's legit. Heck, don't forget that there was a whole war down there. Although the number of armed conflicts and terrorist incidents decreased to 0 since 2005. No one knows how many more bases remain down there, but a huge stash like this really did come as a surprise. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ach so, it's a remnant of the previous conflicts -- I was afraid that it might be a preparative cache for a new attempt to drive the rest of the Serbs out of Kosovo... — Nightstallion 08:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes, that's there to prepare for a future conflict when tensions raise.
 * But Presevo is not in Kosovo. That is Central Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not good, then.
 * But still on the border to Kosovo... — Nightstallion 09:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they committed themselves to attacking buses in Vranje, raiding local villages and clashes with the police and armed forces in the region, not connected to Kosovo (except the local Liberation Army was actually a branch of the KLA). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Not good. sighs — Nightstallion 09:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Vojislav Seselj
There has been one occasion of witness intimidation regarding Seselj's case. Although yet not so systematic as with Haradinaj's Brammertz issued grave warnings to Serbian officials of the fear that it might go the wrong way, since the identity of this protected witness has been revealed. Serge warns there is a possibility, because of the tragically poorly done case on Seselj's alleged crimes, of his acquittal.

Should that occur, ICTY would seal its reputation as a mockery of a legal institution. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * nods That would be pretty horrible... We don't need another Haradinaj case... — Nightstallion 19:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ICTY prosecutors outraged at the decision of the court to release Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović to freedom to return home until the trial begins. Stanisic might be yet another notorious war criminal facing acquittal for lack of evidence. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * sighs — Nightstallion 18:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Vojvodinian election

 * DS/G17+ - 41
 * SRS - 4
 * DSS-NS - 2
 * SPS - 2
 * LSV - 1
 * LDP - 1
 * others - 5

Comment? :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty wonderful, if you ask me. :) — Nightstallion 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's like always say, the 11 May was the beginning of the end of the Radicals. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ) — Nightstallion 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just updated. SRS won 4, and not 5. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, even better. — Nightstallion 13:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Genocide
The genocide case Croatia vs. Serbia begins today.

After some symbolic retributions for war damage in Konavle and mutual friendship messages between the Croatian and Montenegrin governments, including understandings for their territorial dispute over Prevlaka and President Stjepan Mesic's proclamation of an honorary citizen of Podgorica, Montenegro was dropped from the case and the charges directed solely towards Serbia.

SDP HR's preelectoral promise was dropping the case altogether in the spirit of reconciliation in the Balkans, which was also the call of the democratic Serbian authorities. However, HDZ - who advocated it - won the election. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * sighs — Nightstallion 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Serbian defense upholds that FRY wasn't a UN member state before 2000, and that only in 2001 the Genocide Convention was signed, calling (again) for national reconciliation. They draw upon the 1999 case FRY vs. 26 NATO member states for aggression and retributions which was rejected, precisely because of the status in which Yugoslavia was, for the very same reasons. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Sounds logical. — Nightstallion 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, but the Croatian legal team calls upon the Bosnian Genocide case, although there are some differences in there. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What were the precise differences? — Nightstallion 20:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The BH was filed in 1996, and accepted, and the Croatian was filed in late 1999 - right after it was decided that the court had no supervision in early 1999 over the FRY vs. NATO. The Court made a decision with the Bosnian case that it was filed before it was concluded that the court was not authorized, so it continued the trial. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And the greatest part of the Croatian charge is for 1991 and 1992 - when there was no FRY, but the greater SFRY. This would also mean that Croatia should've not left out Montenegro, but should've filed charges for genocide against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia too. The Bosnian case concentrated itself for the period between 1992 and 1995, on the Serb Republic, and not Serbia, therefor failing in most of the cases (they attempted to present that the Republika Srpska was effectively a Serbian puppet-state and worked more under Belgrade than Banja Luka, which was disproved at the court). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound like the Croatian case will work, either... — Nightstallion 21:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it could be rejected, and it's more than obvious that they will fail to prove that the Republic of Serbian Krajina was, as they claim, a puppet-state of Serbia (and its leaders were found responsible for expulsion of 78,000 Croats and various individual massacres), but they will concentrate on the 1991 and 1992 events. Vojislav Seselj's videos are a part of their evidence, in which Seselj claims that his volunteers - those of the Radicals - have never ever committed a single crime, and that those crimes were committed intentionally by Slobodan Milosevic and that they were planned in Belgrade (as he claimed for the Srebrenica). They will probably have to drop the Siege of Dubrovnik, and problems arise at the moment when most commanders were Montenegrin Generals, including with the devastating happenings over at Vukovar, and only Serbia is filed, rather than Montenegro. The Serbian defenders say that there was absolutely no planned or orchestrated genocide to exterminate the Croatian nation, and that they will successfully prove it at the court, as the ICTY never found any genocide in Croatia.
 * In essence the charge was raised as a response to the ICTY's claims that the Croatian state core conspired, planned, prepared and conducted an organized expulsion of all Serbs from Croatia, in an attempt to justify the retaking of the Krayina.
 * That case is also close coming to an end. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Belgrade
A Patriotic government formed. Aleksandar Vucic - most probably new mayor. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad luck, but as long as this doesn't repeat on the national level, everything's fine. — Nightstallion 18:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How big? This means - no participation of G17+. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we knew that before, right? — Nightstallion 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but SPS local boards are most against DS. They have even issued warnings not to go with those who want to sell Kosovo and national traitors. The Presidency declared itself 10/12 for as I've told you before, but on the local is this horrific difficulty and the possibility that the party will not pass such a thing.
 * Palma's proposal to cease negotiations with DSS and SRS failed, and new rounds will continue. However, it was accepted that after all negotiations with that side are over, so they start with DS, before a coalition treaty is signed. This means a LOOONG time before the next government, like the last time. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * nods — Nightstallion 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Georgia election results
No, we have not. The final results are expected to be announced in a week or so. Nobody expects, though, that they will be much different from the preliminary reports. The United National Movement seems to have obtained 120 of 150 seats.--KoberTalk 06:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what precisely the new system means. Are there now 75 constituency seats and 75 proportional ones? And has the Republican Party won 2 constituency seats? — Nightstallion 09:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FL vs. FA
Hi there,

I remember you mentioned a while back that there has been discussions about making the 2 euro commemorative article an FL instead of an FA, but it is an FA as of now. Can I see some of those discussions? I am getting the same question about Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) and I am not sure.

Greatly appreciated, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, the FA nomination page. — Nightstallion 15:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What I am asking is if there is any page where the discussion to promote the 2 euro commemorative article to either an FA or an FL, since the article is currently an FA I wanted to know based on what terms this was decided. Can you help?  Thanks Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/€2 commemorative coins
 * Featured list candidates/€2 commemorative coins
 * — Nightstallion 06:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! In other words, if I propose it for FA it will be decided there if it is a list or an article, correct? Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. — Nightstallion 15:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Trial run on ITN reform proposal
The trial run is active now! Your help in making this a success would be appreciated.--Pharos (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! — Nightstallion 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Electoral templates
User:CieloEstrellado has some changes to many electoral templates (see his contributions). Do you agree with these edits or do you think that his edits should be rollbacked? --Checco (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Either one's okay for me. — Nightstallion 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

CONGRATULATION!!!
Nepal nevertheless became a Republic! Please, clear out Nepal (AND SAMOA!!!) from map of monarchies. CrazyRepublican (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Demonym for Vojvodina
Do you know if there is one, or whether it is just Vojvodina? There aren't many google hits for "Vojvodinan" or "Vojvodinian", though I did find Vojvodinian Movement on here. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Vojvodinian, I think. — Nightstallion 11:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ICTY
Brammertz's report is the most negative (regarding Serbia) one since the very first report Carla del Ponte made in the end of 2000. The Belgian lawyer seems to be angered by the fact that Rassim outright admitted to him that the Hague is not a priority. Rassim stated that he does not understand why 'frankness is being punished' and stated the reason why he told him cooperation with the ICTY will be strained because of Kosovo and the elections - Rassim says he wanted to build a bridge of trust and honesty with the new prosecutor, and intends to create no hidden image. He claims intensified cooperation with the ICTY, even the one on the level which was last year (it's lower), is technically impossible and outside the reaches of his or anyone's affection at all.

Therefore, Rassim will use the right to submit to the UN a separate report for the first time, written by himself just now. The act is never standardly considered as friendly towards the Prosecutor, as it might be understood as undermining his authority, or even might be interpreted as offensive. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Interesting. — Nightstallion 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Kosovo, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer failed to convince Ban Ki Mun to allow UNMIK to hand over authority to the EULEX. UNMIK shall remain, and EULEX will probably become a branch of the mission, taking over the Economy in the UN's name. The only possibility to change the status, would have to be in the Security Council, and that can only happen by adopting a new resolution and replacing the old one.

The Patriots stated that they want to see a European Serbia and asked the Foreign Ministers of the EU to amend the SAA, writing into it that Kosovo is an integral part of the Republic of Serbia and is as such recognized, basically rewriting a sentence from one resolution on Cyprus. After messages from Brussels that the process is very long and hard, making huge technical problems to amend the treaty, Kostunica accused Brussels that it does not want Serbia in the European Union.

After the most recent developments (Kosovo Flag raised up instead of UNMIK's in Brussels, and open statement of the Slovenian Foreign Minister that this is a historic moment, since it recognizes Kosovo as a new and equal European nation), the Patriots are drawing nearer to completion of a coalition treaty. DSS, SRS and SPS have reached and concluded a coalition treaty, negotiations with PUPS are drawing to completion, they wanted special guarantees for the retired. The last remaining link in the chain is JS (NS authorized DSS completely to negotiate in its name), and negotiations with Palma were not yet led. And you know what that remaining point is - the SAA. A recent call from the European Union for Belgrade to establish "good neighborhood relations" with Kosovo, to which Kostunica responded that this is the first time in history that it is asked from it to establish good neighborhood relations with its own part. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see. You think an anti-European coalition is now likely? — Nightstallion 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, just take a calculator and see who is closer. I don't think Palma will be able to take up the pressure, if he is alone and outnumbered by both the Socialists and the Retired. There is but one greatest flaw. The coalition treaty includes a request of PUPS - automatically increasing pensions to 70% of wages during employment. This is absolutely impossible to achieve under any circumstance by anyone. The only option is for someone to give Serbia a gift of one billion Euros. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Historic domestic trials for war crimes in Croatia complete. Rahim Ademi released of all charges and Mirko Norac sentenced to 7 years (which is an addition to his already serving 12). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Blergh. — Nightstallion 11:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Political Parties..?
A (very) draft discussion on the policy on political parties has been started by me here - User:Doktorbuk/pp. If you can assist with this discussion, or know how to help me get this policy looked at, advanced, and accepted by the larger Wiki community, please let me know. Many thanks doktorb wordsdeeds 19:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done
I did that which you asked me. I also made maps. You can now freely compare the presidential and parliamentary elections. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Nightstallion 11:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nepal
Well, Nepal is now a republic. The new govt is still not formed, I think its a negotation that will not have an easy resolve. Maoists want all top posts, other parties are unwilling to concede to this (as the same time as they are ambigious over participating in the govt at all). The govt need to be formed by 2/3-majority, meaning no govt can be formed without maoist support, but maoists need support of at least 2 of the remaining major parties (NC, UML, MJF). The nominated seats are still vacant. See. result.nepalelectionportal.org/searchpp.php has a full listing of CA members. Some 5-6 seats will hold bye-polls, as one individual has won in more than one seat. --Soman (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When will the by-elections be held? — Nightstallion 08:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They double-members will have to chose which seat they vacate by June 8, . I suppose after that the process will be initiated. Perhaps 1-2 months from now elections will be held? --Soman (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be so kind as to let me know when the date is set? I want to make sure we've got the correct and final election results in the article. ;) Thanks! — Nightstallion 09:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will keep an eye open for the date. My suggestion is that we create a Nepalese Constituent Assembly bye-election, 2008 article once the date is declared. --Soman (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. First, it would be "by-election" -- and second, usually we have the info in the main election article if they are elections which were a result of the actual election and not of resignations or similar things (we also have the info on Pakistani by-election and Zimbabwean by-elections, both with dates in June, in their main election articles). — Nightstallion 11:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominated seats details at. Don't know if this is final, I think we can wait with adding the details to the template til we actually have names of the nominated MPs. --Soman (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'd have preferred people from civil society or non-represented minorities or women. :( Thanks for the news. — Nightstallion 18:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, the source states "five other parties get one seat" but only lists four of them?! — Nightstallion 18:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fifth is the TMLP, it is mentioned in an article in Kantipur. Since both articles give similar info, i have updated the result template. --Soman (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also found that article now. Thanks! — Nightstallion 11:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Socialists
...want the seat of Prime Minister or Speaker in secret negotiations with Tadic. On the side, they also mentioned that they'd like the free return of the Milosevics from Russian exile and releasing Milanovic, the Director of the Serbian national television, from prison. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There are rumors Macedonia and Montenegro might recognize Kosovo, or at least that they are considering that, some time in June. The important date in Macedonia are the elections (1 June), and in Kosovo the Kosovar Constitution (16 June). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They certainly won't get PM, but will they be given the speaker's post? I've heard about the two demands -- why do they want to free someone who knowingly did not evacuate a building about to be bombed?
 * Yeah, that sounds logical. I'd personally expect another wave of recognitions after the constitution comes into force (on 15 June, though, I believe...?). — Nightstallion 08:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are various controversies on his role, Tomislav Nikolic and Aleksandar Vucic had the leading role as Ministers in the government for not evacuating, and fact is that they were even indicted, while this guy received a long sentence. It's one of those times, always someone guilty has to be blamed, and all went to him, since the charges against NATO were dropped for non-jurisdiction of the ICJ.
 * Tadic's PM candidate will likely be Bojan Pajtic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who will replace him in Vojvodina? And is he good? ;) — Nightstallion 11:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons of his position would be promote the multi-ethnic character of Serbia (which, as you noticed Bojan Pajtic's article, I'm sure you are aware of). He's hard working and generally very, very good at managing things, which I guess you can conclude from the Vojvodinian election results. His only flaw is that he lacks actual charisma, speech capabilities, and his opponents often talk about his physical 'ugliness'. Ultra-nationalists frequently combined this with his ethnic origins to try to present him as some sort of a mutant.
 * Talking about ethnic origins, some public controversies regarding Boris Tadic, alluding to the possibilities of his mother's ethnic background, possibly identical to his mother-in-law's (which is Croat). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pajtic's successor would be a certain Dusan Elezovic, President of the Democratic Party's municipal board and so far unknown to the broader political scene. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods — Nightstallion 12:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The parliamentary session of Belgrade's Civic Parliament was scheduled for 14 July. The Patriots object this greatly, calling it stalling. The Radicals are organizing mass demonstrations 'against Yellow terror, tyranny and dictatorship'. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, bad luck for them. ;) — Nightstallion 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
Presence of UNMIK in form of an International Office as a mediator between Kosovo and other factors shall be the one after 15 June. It is also revealed that Kremlin is seriously pressing Ban Ki Mun, as well as that he plans to raise some dialog with Tadic over the Kosovo problematic.

Serbia has officially lodged a protest and requested a replacement of Jelko Kacin. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With what likely result?
 * Why do they want a replacement of Kacin? In what office? — Nightstallion 08:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He is currently the European Parliament's Reporter for Serbia.
 * LDP called UNMIK to recognize the local elections in Kosovo, claiming that one step always draws another, nearer to Serbia's recognition of EULEX. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a fair deal, as the elections in the Serbian municipalities would have been held in some way, anyway. — Nightstallion 11:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to Rule 29
This may be old news to you, but there's a proposal to alter Rule 29 and raise the threshold required for European Parliament group formation from this:


 * 20 MEPs for at least one fifth of the member states (currently six countries).

to this:


 * 30 MEPs for at least one quarter of the member states (currently seven countries).

That'll kill IND/DEM (not enough MEPs) and UEN (not enough countries), and reduce the probability of ED splitting off from EPP-ED to form MER. It's bizarre to see PES and EPP-ED, who presumably have a committment to European diversity, actively trying to suppress it. I'll throw it in the article when I have time, tho' I'm currently trying to upgrade the IND/DEM article. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How likely is it that the proposal will become a rule? --Checco (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposal came close (14/15) in the Constitutional Affairs committee on 27 May but it's due to be voted on by Parliament in July in the next sitting (starts Jun 4/Brussels ). The threatened groups will probably vote against it en masse (turkey's don't vote for Xmas) but EPP-ED/PES want it, so if they can get all their MEPs to vote for it, it'll probably happen. PES is the most cohesive large group so they'll all vote for it, so the question becomes "Will EPP-ED vote as a bloc?" EPP-ED is the least cohesive large group (in the 99 Parliament, the Conservative/Christian Democrat split was very pronounced: I remember reading something by Hix about it, possibly on the Santer Commission) but this increases their power and influence so my guess would be that yes, it'll pass. But that's just my guess.


 * Ironic: the traditional weakness of proportional representation voting systems is they lead to a fissiparous parliament, with lots of little parties and coalitions. But the implications of the proposed Rule 29 change will lead to fewer groups (down from seven to five). Presumably most of UEN will move in with EPP-ED (no surprise there, and in accordance with historical trends) or ALDE, but I don't know what the Eurosceptics will do - ALDE will reject them out of hand (I think Europhilia is actually in their constitution, but don't quote me), they'll find cold comfort in a europhile EPP-ED, they'd be very uncomfortable in PES, and a Green/Regionalist/Eurosceptic alliance would be interesting in the Chinese sense. One possibility is a my-enemy-is-your-enemy union between ED and IND/DEM, with eurosceptics and eurosceptic conservatives uniting, but that depends on ED's desire to grow a pair and leave EPP-ED, which will mean them leaving a loveless marriage of convenience for the more-honorable-but-harder existence a a unified-but-less-powerful group.


 * Of course, this is just speculation on my part. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've already mentioned this in European Parliament election, 2009, but it would be great if you could flesh out the text and mention it in other relevant articles. I agree with your analysis -- the national conservatives will mostly move in with EPP or ED, possibly some with ELDR or EDP if the political views match (Fianna Fail, I'm looking at you), but the eurosceptics basically only have a chance to either join forces with ED or to form a grand group of the rejects with the fascists and neo-Nazis. — Nightstallion 08:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thanks a lot for letting me know! — Nightstallion 09:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia..
...absolutely horrible... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This will severely divide the two major ethnic groups. The NATO is nowhere near satisfied with the events, and states that of the five Albanian parties, one must be a component part of the new government. If the ethnic Macedonians unite amongst each other and leave out the Albanians, that will further nurture the segregation of the two peoples, and Skopje will also lose sympathies from the West, which is precisely what many of the Albanians want. So far there were only serious squabbles amongst the ethnic Albanian political parties, with even assassination attempts reported. This ought to unite them. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Pretty horrible, yes... And the Greek nationalists with their name issues don't really help, either... — Nightstallion 11:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is EU admission possible without the NATO for Macedonia / not necessary to speed up? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, technically of course -- but Greece is unlikely to deny Macedonia NATO accession while allowing progress on the EU front... — Nightstallion 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And if the Patriots win in Serbia...dark times are ahead for the Balkans, again. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope not... Have you read the latest study, BTW, that there's less crime in the Balkans than in Western Europe? — Nightstallion 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. Brussels stated that it doesn't believe it though. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you? ;) — Nightstallion 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As the matter of fact, I do - from both domestic sources and Englishmen that regularly pay Serbia and Croatia a visit (that I personally know) and who claim that they feel a lot safer in there then in their homes. But let me also clarify you the reasons. Mugging here is really a rarity and murders only happen in cases of insanity or love (if the latter doesn't include the first), but the fact remains in networks of strong organized crime until a while ago actually sanctioned by the governments. The first type of crime is actually not a characteristic of Communist countries, and that's the result of that heritage. Over the years of the 1990s and the transition it included, these people were either removed, or, as with most cases, went completely clean and became wealthy tycoons. In some cases they themselves turned into the very democratic institutions and took over the state reforms, like in Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So petty crime is lower in the Balkans, but organised crime has turned to semi-official channels instead? — Nightstallion 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A Prime Minister or political finances source is truly completely official rather, and when someone who has become rich as a war profiteer, black market smuggler or mafia boss becomes a wealthy businessman, he is no longer a criminal and thus there is no more organized crime. The saddest thing is that most of these people will die as if nothing had happened before.
 * When someone observes this entire case in the Balkans, he / she would perhaps conclude that this actually works out for the future generations...and then again, is it, considering the circumstances, moral to consider that? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't know... sighs — Nightstallion 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me give you an example - Serbia. In normal countries, robbers brake into banks and steal money, right? However, in Serbia there was no such thing. There were no thieves. In Milosevic's Serbia, banks robbed the people. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Some would argue that banks by definition rob people... ;) — Nightstallion 07:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-electoral poll
Saw it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good... — Nightstallion 20:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

HELP US MAKING THE PROJECT OF ANCIENT GREEK WIKIPEDIA
We are the promoters of the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue the work!!!

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kacin
In the late 1980s and early 1990s he was a Slovenian nationalist, by definitions the Serbs interpreting some of his statements in speeches as being plain Serbophobic. He was the Minister of Defense in 1990 and 1991, responsible for secretly building up the Territorial Defense Force and leading the 11 Day war against the Yugoslav People's Army. The controversial thing is the actual war's beginning, the Federal Minister of Defense (Croatian, IMHO) ordered a unit of unarmed members of the Yugoslav armed youth to march into Slovenia and hold a march in Ljubljana, the Federal government thought that such a demonstration would renew Yugoslav Pan-Slavism and replace Slovene nationalism. However, Kacin warned that any intrusion would be considered aggression on Slovenia, and ordered the attack on them, they were all killed. To this day controversies float over this case and various investigations, especially since Slovenia entered the EU when it became a more open society.

And in the end, there were constant rumors, but true, never proven, that Slovenia was in the late 1980s and early 1990s financing separatists in Kosovo, there goes Kacin's statement that Slovenia must do everything in its power to induce a war in Serbia itself, in order to assist the breakup of Yugoslavia. Kacin has been for years assigned by the EU for Serbia and Montenegro. Over those years, the majority of his work was dedicated to lobbying Kosovar independence. When asked by Belgrade regarding, he says that he was assigned only for Serbia and Montenegro without Kosovo, then again this contradicts with the fact that his every single statement is regarding Kosovo, and that it would seem that he is assigned for Kosovo without Serbia and Montenegro. No real work on other fields, whenever he comes to Belgrade the only thing he talks about is that Serbia should recognize Kosovo and that European integrations are impossible if it doesn't, claiming that Kosovo will then enter the EU far before Serbia.

That sums it up... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like he's a bit one-sided... — Nightstallion 11:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And to read his job prescription according to which he is the one to guide Serbia into the EU (?) ;-). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Well, it didn't say when he should do that, right? ;) — Nightstallion 13:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does in the job proscription of the Prime Minister say "Do something for your country then, then and then"? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When I look at some of the PMs and presidents we've got in Europe right now, I'm not really sure... sighs — Nightstallion 15:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is an interesting thing in his recent interview:
 * QUESTION: For Serbia it means that you openly stood on the side of Kosovo separatists.
 * ANSWER: I do not support any separatist anywhere, I support sovereignty and territorial integrity of the independent state of Kosovo. The Republic of Kosovo. I do not support dull separatist that want to tear apart the independent country of Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well. Ahem. — Nightstallion 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
Ban Ki Mun, EU and Russia are working to form up a new resolution to officialize the EULEX. Ban claims that is the best solution, as looking beside the UN SC for solutions once more will further incriminate the reputation of UN as an interntional institution. It would reaffirm the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Serbia, which would appease both China and Russia and several loud non-permanent members. Britain and France seem to be willing to accept that, by the United States is the problem.

SPS-PUPS-JS declared unsatisfied with the provisions of DSS-NS and SRS regarding the SAA (a SRS-DSS expert team held a lesson to explain the Socialists why the SAA is bad for Serbia), but its board decided today to continue negotiations with the Patriots in the following week. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And how exactly would reaffirming the integrity of Serbia work, while Kosovo is becoming detached from it?
 * Whom will they form a coalition with, then...? — Nightstallion 07:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just rewriting 1244, except affirming territorial integrity and sovereignty of the "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" is replaced with "Republic of Serbia".
 * Well, it seems that it is 125:125, a most peculiar situation! It will be very interesting to see if this further complicates (will there be Palma's abolition of seats, trials that could go all the way to the Constitutional Court, or even repeated parliamentary elections). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods
 * sighs — Nightstallion 12:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The only remaining alternative is for Ban Ki Mun to merge the two missions, replacing Rucker with the EULEX head as the new Special Representative of the UNMIK.
 * DS decided to go along G17+. There will be no government, should a Patriotic one be formed on the level of Belgrade. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that means early elections then, I suppose. Good or bad? — Nightstallion 12:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, one side obviously counts on them. You have seen the post-electoral poll? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope it's right... — Nightstallion 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Croatian-Serbian relations
Have reached the bottom point since the end of the war: On the international meeting in Zagreb, Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic, aside from other things, stated that Operation Storm had featured ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia. He also announced opening a second consulate in Croatia, in Knin, aimed ad assisting the return of most of the displaced refugees. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. sighs — Nightstallion 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

European Alliance
One of the four political groups in the Committee of the Regions is UEN-EA. EA stands for European Alliance, but what does it stand for? We should have an article about European Alliance, but I don't know where to start from. --Checco (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PS/Reminder: I remind you of those articles about South Tyrolean parties...

We should also fix European Democrat Group, which is not only a defunct group of the European Parliament, but also a current group in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. --Checco (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, but Anameofmyveryown is a far better person to write those article than I'd be. ;) — Nightstallion 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you certain it's just not a name the UEN uses in the CotR, though? — Nightstallion 14:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually don't know. I wrote posts both in Talk:Committee of the Regions and Talk:European Democrats and I will ask to Anameofmyveryown. --Checco (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: What about South Tyrol? Do you have some time? --Checco (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not right now, no... :( — Nightstallion 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One last question for today: where do you think I can find help for my pet project, Politics of Italian regions? I am sure that, as there are articles about every single by-election in Canada, we should have also altricles about the politics and the elections of Italian regions, but I can't do the entire work alone... --Checco (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Get Italian editors who speak English to help you? — Nightstallion 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is one year that I try too woo it.Wiki editors on the cause, but no-one wants to do it and most of them don't bother to tell me that they don't. In my opion we need to choose if those articles are useful or not. I obviuously consider them useful, especially because it.Wiki does not have such articles. I need someone who can be interested in doing it, as he is interested in working on Brazilian or Spanish elections... --Checco (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects on Politics and other related topics? Can't think of anything else, sorry... But yes, they're definitely useful. — Nightstallion 16:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try some day to recruit someone from those projects. For now I'll continue to do the work that I can: today, for instance, I started Politics of Calabria... --Checco (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that you like this kind of changes to templates? --Checco (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * shrugs Fine either way. — Nightstallion 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. See you soon. --Checco (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to take up space on your talk page, 'stallion, but instead of scattering my responses 'cross Wikipedia, I'd thought I'd do it here.

European Alliance
Quotes on the European Alliance Group in the Committee of the Regions

Within the COR, EFA aligned with a group of independents from English local authorities plus Ireland’s governing party, Fianna Fail, to establish the European Alliance as a party group from 1999-2004. The group had clear parallels with the organisation of regionalists in the European Parliament, with the need for a formal alliance with non-regionalists to establish political groups that would be recognised and funded by European institutions. The EFA parties were a minority within the European Alliance, but then so were Fianna Fail and the Independents. Clearly, without this group, each would be unattached members of the COR and lack committee places and political clout. The EFA members within the COR were not marginal figures within the sphere of multi-level governance. EFA members of the COR included: Paul Van Grembergen of SPIRIT, the Flemish Minister for Interior, Housing, Civil Service, Foreign Trade and Urban Policy; Keith Brown of the SNP, a local council leader; Juan José Ibarretxe of PNV, who is President of the Basque Country; Dino Viérin of the Union Valdotaine, who is President of the Autonomous Region of Val D’Aosta.9 Thus, four of the European Alliance’s COR delegation of ten members came from the EFA parties. Amongst the alternate COR members, the EFA was represented by politicians from SPIRIT, Plaid Cymru, the PNV and the SNP. Similarly, though the European Alliance was a relatively loose grouping of regionalists and non-regionalists, it developed some programmatic coherence as necessitated by European institutional rules plus the need for group coherence within the COR. The European Alliance had eight main principles, which were closely aligned with long-standing EFA policy positions:

• Environmental and Sustainable development as defined in the Brundtland Report from the UN with the full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. • Peace, détente; • Freedom and right of self-determination; • Defence of all languages, cultures and local government; • An open Europe of autonomous regions and nations; • Openness and grass-roots democracy; • Sound management of all European structures, in order to prevent fraud and waste. • The defence of human rights (European Alliance 2004).

European Alliance members were committed to ‘actively support and vote for an open Europe of regions and nations and the highest possible standards for environmental protection, workers' health, consumer protection, veterinary rules, social welfare and democratic principles. The members commit themselves to work together to obtain and defend such rights and equality of treatment. At the same time, they acknowledge the full political autonomy of the individual members and groupings.’ (European Alliance 2004). Thus, similar to previous quasi-regionalist political groups, the European Alliance simultaneously adopted common positions and allowed members to act autonomously: another uneasy balancing act for the parties involved. However, this version of the European Alliance ran for only one term. From 2004, the organisation was reconstituted as the Union for Europe of the Nations-European Alliance group and the EFA-DPPE parties left. Despite EFA-DPPE representation in the COR and the presence of EFA parties in regional parliaments and some governments, the regionalists found themselves institutionally marginalised within the Committee of the Regions.

The European Alliance group in the Committee of the Regions was chaired by Sean Ó Neachtain in the 1998-2002 term.

the EA group has officially become the Union for Europe of the Nations – European Alliance (UEN-EA).

Other general reading on the CoR
 * UEN-EA Website
 * UEN-EA Website sitemap
 * Political Groups of the Committee of the Regions
 * The Government and Politics of the European Union, by Neill Nugent, pages 317-320
 * Committee of the Regions: at-a-glance
 * Welcome to the Committee of the Regions (powerpoint)
 * Handbook for Members of the Committee of the Regions
 * Absorbing the Shock: Enlargement’s Effects on the Committee of the Regions
 * Absorbing the Shock: Enlargement’s Effects on the Committee of the Regions(text version)
 * The Enlargement of the Committee of the Regions. Evaluating the Entrance of New Member States in a Representative Institution

European Democrats in EP and PACE
I assume the European Democratic Group (former EP group), European Democrats (EP subgroup) and European Democrat Group (PACE) constitute a de facto alliance of Conservative parties in Europe and have reformatted European Democrats after the style of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe accordingly. As for the PACE group, its website is here, its PACE details are here and relevant quotes are:

The European Democrat Group was originally named Group of Independent Representatives and founded in 1970 by British and Scandinavian members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It then had about 35-40 members from England, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Turkey, Sweden and Switzerland. At that time the only other existing groups in the Parliamentary Assembly were the Socialist Group and the Christian Democrat Group. But the Secretariat of the Group of Independent Representatives was the first one to be created in 1977. The proposal for a renaming of the Group was submitted on 6 July 1978. In September 1980 the European Democrat Group was officially created.

My stance on these matters
I can't commit to completing/creating the PACE groups, nor the CoR groups, nor the NATO Parliamentary Assembly groups until 2009 at the earliest: I still haven't finished the EP groups and after that, I have to return to the election pages. I am also currently up to my elbow in rewriting IND/DEM: I've read their press releases, collated academic sources, sourced their policy positions on the Constitution Treaty/Treaty of Lisbon & Turkish accession (go on, guess) and deduced their MEPs at formation (Lega Nord joined a day late) and at present, but I still have to work out their other policy positions and fit them on the Hix-Lord scale, so lots still to do. User:Checco, the quotes and sources above are sufficient for you to make a start on completing European Democrats with respect to PACE and, should you wish, do an article on the CoR European Alliance. Don't forget to insert inline citations (just listing the sources at the bottom is not enough: this is not the Transnational Radical Party) and don't just do a cut-and-paste job.

Hope that helps, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have the knowledge and the skills to write those articles. If Nightstallion doesn't either, we will wait for Anameofmyveryown until 2009... By the way, if I understood correctly, it is very interesting to know that EFA is allied with UEN at PACE through EA: an European regionalist party, which excludes non-progressive parties from its membership and from its subgroup in the EP, is allied with right-wing national-conservatives at PACE! --Checco (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I could write two little stubs, but I'd prefer to leave the relevant work to the professionals (= Anameofmyveryown). — Nightstallion 09:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please write those stubs... --Checco (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Palma..
...excludes any possibility of cooperation with SRS and DSS-NS. "Either DS, or new elections!". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Is he adamantly serious about it? — Nightstallion 09:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. He deems the Patriots "Anti-European lobby". Hence the probability of the 50%:50% case. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The JS board has brought the decision to not participate in the forthcoming negotiations with the Patriots. They are convinced their coalition partners will see the SRS' and DSS' true viewpoints on European integrations in the following and decide for a coalition with DS.
 * Ivica Dacic criticized Palma greatly, but said that if the division inside the coalition really cannot be transcended, it shall be broken and new elections scheduled. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. — Nightstallion 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
The Assembly of the Serbian People of Kosovo and Metohija shall have 45 Deputies. 43 are elected by municipal parliaments, while the remaining two are reserved one for Romani and the other for the Slavic Muslim minority.

The local DSS, SRS, SPS, G17+ and DS political leaders have reached a joint agreement to schedule its Constitutive Session for 15 June 2008, because of the Kosovar Constitution. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and why exactly do only Romani and Muslims get representatives...? Either way, could you write a short article on the Assembly of the Serbian People of Kosovo and Metohija? ;) — Nightstallion 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the Turks have gone after the declaration of independence to accepting it...if that's what you mean.
 * I shall wait until it is formed. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So the Turks accept independence, while the Romani and Slavic do not? What about the Egyptians, Ashkali and Gorani?
 * That'd be great, too. :) — Nightstallion 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gorani=Slavic Muslim and Egyptians/Ashkali=Romani. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought Bosniak = Slavic Muslim, Romani = Romani and Egyptians/Ashkali/Gorani are related, but different from these? — Nightstallion 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here how it was. In communist age the Slavs of Islamic faith were "Muslims by ethnicity" in Yugoslavia. In Kosovo there is an autochtonous little Serb-related Slavic civilization, known as the Gorani, and they gained the liberty to call themselves that way (although up to half outright opted to be Serbs) after 1990. There are most Slavic Muslims. There are some others, but those do not form majority anywhere and aren't significant in numbers. With the birth of the Bosniac nation in 1993 and establishment of a Bosnian political party in Kosovo, many of them opted to become ethnic Bosniaks. Yet others, simply still consider themselves Muslims in ethnic sense. In any case "Slavic Moslem" covers all of them in general nowadays. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So "Slavic Muslims" = Muslims + Bosniaks + Gorani? And what about Ashkali and Egyptians? — Nightstallion 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They were considered Romas since...well, forever. Some with the dawn of the 21st century have identified them as separate ethnic groups from the Romanis. Egyptians are Romanis of Egyptian origin (collectively descend from Egyptian colonists brought by the Ottomans) and the Ashkalis are Albanized Romanis. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that! — Nightstallion 22:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It shall be only provisional, before the first direct elections to it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Well, the Serbs were supposed to be autonomous within Kosovo anyway, so I see no big problem with that in principle, apart from the fact that I'm not sure the Romani or Muslims should be in there. shrugs Don't forget the article. ;) — Nightstallion 11:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism
Two such incidents today:

1) Albanian terrorists detonated with heavy explosives a police car in a police station yard in southern Serbia

2) Political dissidents and other opponents made an assassination attempt on Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and after a shooting between his bodyguard and the unit, they fled. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch. — Nightstallion 17:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

DPPE-EFA or EFA
'stallion, hi!

Answer to your question

At a guess, it may have something to do with the treaty of Nice. Europarties were governed by Article 138a (Maastricht), now Article 191(1) EC (Nice?), (aka 191a) and the Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003, so in about 2004, the parties got more organised (see ). Around about this time, EFA's old site was dropped  and a new one  was set up  after Nelly Maes became leader. Prior to that point, sources had used dppe-efa and efa interchangeably. User:Mais oui! changed the Wikipedia entry to European Free Alliance on 21 August 2005 although it.wikipedia still mentions the dppe part.

EFA sources

If you're going to work on the European Free Alliance article, then the following sources may help you:


 * Wayback Archive entries for efa-dppe website: includes press releases
 * History of efa-dppe since 1996
 * EFA 2004 manifesto
 * The Evolution of Europe's Transnational Political Parties in the Era of European Citizenship
 * "Democratic Party of the Peoples of Europe - European Free Alliance, usually referred to as the EFA, or sometimes the DPPE-EFA", page 296, Party funding and campaign financing in international perspective By Keith D. Ewing, Samuel Issacharoff, ISBN:1841135704
 * THE IMPACT OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION ON ETHNOREGIONALIST PARTIES, by Lieven de Winter
 * Democratic Party of the Peoples of Europe - European Free Alliance General Assembly 2002

Wikipedia history


 * User:Keith Edkins changed title to Democratic Party of the Peoples of Europe - European Free Alliance on 1 July 2004
 * User:The Tom changed it to European Free Alliance - Democratic Party of the Peoples of Europe on 31 December 2004
 * User:Mais oui! changed it to European Free Alliance on 21 August 2005

Variants
 * Democratic Party of the Peoples of Europe - European Free Alliance, DPPE-EFA
 * European Free Alliance - Democratic Party of the Peoples of Europe, EFA-DPPE
 * Alliance Libre Européenne/Parti Démocratique des Peuples d'Europe, ALE-PDPE
 * Alianza Libre Europea-Partido Democrático de los Pueblos de Europa, ALE-PDPE

Treaty of Lisbon

Oh incidentally, the Irish may vote against the ToL. Shit...

Hope that helps, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks. Haven't got too much time to work on it right now, though... Thanks a lot, though! — Nightstallion 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Georgia elections
Hello Nightstallion. The final results are here + maps. Best,--KoberTalk 16:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) — Nightstallion 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

MNE
Milo Djukanovic (finally) takes over and purges the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does he own the whole state yet...? — Nightstallion 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not. He has no control of the Church. Will be very interesting if / when he takes it over too, I can't wait to see what'll happen. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Judging from history -- nothing, he'll succeed... sighs — Nightstallion 22:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaaargh!
You....swine! You asked "hey, why did the DPPE-EFA become EFA?". So I checked it out. To do this checking out required me to read the f*****g Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Rome. Well, bits of them at least. But they were big bits, and this is European legislation I'm talking about, not Dr. f*****g Seuss. I'll be having "having regard to the provisions of..." nightmares for days. Aaaargh! I had to rewrite the Europarty article to get the sequence of events right (not sure about the treaty of Amsterdam bit: the funding issue may have gone back to Maastricht, but the timeline roughly matches). Double aaarrgh!

So anyway, returning to the land of the sane, I think the sequence of events looks like this:

This explains why the DPPE-EFA became the EFA. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the hassle, but thanks for explaining it! :) — Nightstallion 11:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #17
Number 17, June 7, 2008 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. This newsletter covers all of May 2008.

''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 Cyclone Nargis was the costliest and deadliest natural disaster in the history of Burma (Myanmar). It formed on April 27 in the central Bay of Bengal, and after initially tracking north-northwestward it turned to the east. Quickly strengthening to reach peak winds of at least 165 km/h (105 mph), Nargis made landfall in the Ayeyarwady Division of Burma on May 2 near peak intensity. The cyclone killed at least 80,000 people and potentially over 300,000. Passing near the metropolis of Yangon, the cyclone destroyed thousands of buildings, and damage was estimated at over $10 billion (USD). In the wake of the storm, the ruling military junta of Burma initially refused foreign aid, and after they allowed foreign assistance, the government was criticized for its poor handling of the aftermath of the storm.

Other tropical cyclone activity
 * Northwestern Pacific Ocean – Typhoon Rammasun was the strongest tropical cyclone worldwide during the month, though it did not affect land. Tropical Storm Matmo formed east of Luzon in the middle of the month and lasted for three days. Severe Tropical Storm Halong (Cosme) was the deadliest storm in the Pacific basin, causing 58 deaths and $94 million (USD) in damage after hitting Luzon on May 17. At the end of the month, Typhoon Nakri formed and reached peak intensity over open waters before becoming extratropical in early June.
 * Eastern Pacific Ocean – Tropical Storm Alma was was the easternmost forming Pacific tropical cyclone on record. Forming from a trough on May 29, it became a strong tropical storm before making landfall near León, Nicaragua, killing at least two people.
 * 2008 Atlantic hurricane season– Tropical Storm Arthur formed from the remnants of Tropical Storm Alma as it made landfall on Belize, causing flash flooding and at least nine fatalities.

New and improved articles
 * There were three new pieces of Featured content : 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, List of United States hurricanes, Tropical Depression Ten (2007)
 * New Good articles include: Cyclone Gamede, Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Georgia, 1987 Atlantic hurricane season, Hurricane Lili, 1959 Mexico Hurricane
 * New storm articles include: Hurricane Alma (1996), Hurricane Gladys (1975), Hurricane Liza (1968)
 * New non-storm articles include: Hurricane Frances tornado outbreak, List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes (1980–present), 1851 Atlantic hurricane season

Project News Several other languages are active in the realm of tropical cyclone articles, though as much as ours. The French Wikipedia has 76 storm articles, the Spanish Wikipedia has 99 storm articles, and the Portuguese Wikipedia has 116 storm articles. Each of the projects have several storm articles we do not have, and the coverage on non-notable storms outside of the Atlantic is better, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere.

During the month, User:Potapych finished working on Template:Infobox Hurricane Small, which is used for the small Infoboxes in season articles; he has updated several season article already with the changes.

Main Page content
 * Cyclone Nargis appeared early in the month in the In the news column
 * Entries from three articles: Hurricane Madeline (1998), Hurricane Alma (1996), and Hurricane Liza (1968) appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during May.

Storm article statistics

Member of the month The May member of the month is Juliancolton. Joining the project in November 2007, Julian has become an active member of the project, working on new articles in the Atlantic basin. He has created two featured lists (List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes (1980–present) and List of New York hurricanes), and rewrote the article on 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, which became featured during May. Juliancolton is currently working on a featured topic for Hurricane Dennis and its effects by region.

New members ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * HkCaGu
 * Leolisa1997
 * Itfc+canes=me

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dechani
Rucker has decided to return the property of the High Dechani 14th century monastery, confiscated by the Communists after World War II. However, the day before yesterday the local Albanian administration refused to hand it over. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then Rücker will have to force them. — Nightstallion 11:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No point I'm afraid. The remaining local Serbs held a gathering and decided to collectively move out of Dechani to Serb-inhabited areas (mostly enclaves) today. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * sighs — Nightstallion 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One good news though, the local Pristina court sentenced several days ago to 40 years a terrorist that blew up a train from Nish, killing 11 passengers and wounding 10. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Good. — Nightstallion 13:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The main DS board approved a coalition with SPS and authorized Tadic to negotiate it. The form of the government would be 12 Ministries for DS, 5 for G17+, 5 for SPS, 1 for SPO and 1 for the Bosniacs. Due to restructuring of positions within the government, Rasim Ljajic might likely become Prime Minister, rather than Bojan Pajtic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods And, do you think we'll get a pro-EU government or repeated elections? — Nightstallion 13:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, DS will manage to lead some sort in coalition with LDP, I guess. But the small parties are precisely because of that scared of repeated elections, and they thus might not allow them. For one thing, it's a too big risk for LDP, as it'll once more be a much bigger probability to not pass the threshold. For one thing it would further bring Kostunica's downfall, but I do not think the Socialists would risk weakening such a good result like this one. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the SPS would rather agree to a coalition with ZES than risk a worse result in repeated elections? I just hope Palma will not be convinced be SPS-PUPS to agree to a coalition with SRS... — Nightstallion 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He most surely won't. He will either convince PUPS, or Ivica Dacic will strip him of his seats before the constitutive session, which has just been scheduled for 11 June 2008. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can they do that? So SPS will either agree to a ZES coalition, or oust JS and form an SRS coalition? — Nightstallion 14:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just managed to suck out the third name from the three so far anonymous candidates of Boris Tadic for PM. It's Ivica Dacic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously? :O — Nightstallion 11:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rotation, rotation. The Radicals are now Milosevic, the Populists are now Seselj and the Socialists are now Kostunica. ;-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * scratches head Huh? You lost me... — Nightstallion 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A is now B, B is now C and C is now A. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the Radicals are now the "we don't talk to those", the Populists are now the "we don't like them, but have to accept they're important for now" and the Socialists are now the "we have to talk to them, as they are the best we have as partners"? — Nightstallion 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sort of. What I meant to say is that the Radicals are now the serious organized cunning plotting corrupted responsible statists, the Populists are now ultra-nationalists and chauvinists of big proportion and the Socialists can now go with everyone. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With the difference that the plotting corrupts are now the second largest force, while the ultra-nationalists are slowly shrinking to oblivion... — Nightstallion 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Like in other similar countries (Romania). :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True enough -- though I have real difficulty in deciding which party I feel sympathetic to in Romania... How about you? — Nightstallion 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PNL perhaps? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. It's conservative (a minus for me) and not really that pro-European (against common EU policies on taxes, migration, defense & security, ...). The PSD is post-communist, which I don't like *that* much, either... PDL seems to be a bit more centrist and pro-European than PNL, but they're still conservative... And while UDMR is a minority party (which I generally support; I'm quite favourable to left-wing nationalism like SNP, Plaid Cymru, ERC, ...), it's still Christian democratic and a bit too broad to have a real ideology... What do you think? — Nightstallion 10:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(reindent) I know that there aren't any real true good choices at all (and I know that from first had ;) in Romania, but always pick the lesser evil. Yes, I was very intrigued by UDMR (frankly tempted to name it ;-) but it's a Hungarian minority political party. Left-wing nationalism? Due to SPS, I do not favor it, which again narrows me down to PNL. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, SPS is not left-wing nationalist in the sense that I mean -- left-wing nationalism is a group of ideologies which are primarily regionalist or independentist and on the left of the political spectrum, like the pro-independence movements in Catalonia, Scotland, Wales, but not like the nationalist movements in Flanders or like the SPS (who are not regionalist or independentist). — Nightstallion 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! LSV! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think so. :) — Nightstallion 08:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rucker (for the 2nd time) prolonged the terms of the Presidents of the 5 Serb municipalities in Kosovo for half a year. They uphold they shall refuse that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they claim that there have since been other presidents elected? — Nightstallion 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They have already began the transfer. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But Rücker doesn't want to recognise that but instead extend the terms of the old ones? — Nightstallion 10:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the second time (already did it once), yes. This agitates the Albanians though, they're calling it highly undemocratic and comparing it to dictatorial authoritarian powers of the OHR in BH. Especially when repeating. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they have the choice of extending the old ones' terms or of accepting the newly elected ones... sighs And of course it's like the OHR in BIH -- the Kosovans need a similar institution if the Albanians want to have any chance of keeping the Serb-populated territories within their new state... — Nightstallion 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hashim Thaci has stated that he is negotiating with the NATO and does not exclude the possibility of usage of force, especially a way to reintegrate North Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * sighs Couldn't they simply agree to a compromise for now? Ah well... — Nightstallion 08:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Luxembourgian elections
Yes, I'll sort it out. Missed that change as I was on holiday. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  14:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. — Nightstallion 14:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Stojan Zupljanin
He was hiding in an apartment - in Belgrade! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've just read it. Great news, though -- only three more to go! :) — Nightstallion 18:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But on the outskirts of the capital city...in a private apartment...!
 * It's not as a surprise though, Rasim Ljajic told the public during the last year that they are very close to tracking down Stojan Zupljanin. Can't be said about Ratko Mladic, of whom all trail in Serbia has been lost in 2005 (!).
 * But this is a good thing. It's the very first arrest after years. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm not surprised they found him in Serbia. I'm more surprised they delivered him finally.
 * ... didn't they get one or two of them just lately, in 2006 I believe? I remember something like that not long ago... — Nightstallion 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then they should invest more effort, the remaining three could also be in Serbia. I'm not surprised that Zupljanin was caught, Ljajic announced that, but they've lost track of Ratko Mladic in 2005 in Serbia, there were stories about searching Goran Hadzic last year but he was no where to be found, Ljajic even offered him through the media to surrender ("in package" with the other two caught that year), telling him that the best thing he can do for his family right now, but nothing. Radovan Karadzic was last seen in Montenegro a long time ago as well.
 * Nope. You are referring to 2007, and one of them was hiding in the Republic of Montenegro and the other was arrested in the Republic of Srbska. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. You meant it was the first arrest in Serbia for years.
 * So you don't think they'll find any of the last three any time soon? — Nightstallion 21:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The shock wouldn't come if he was arrested, say, in a village on the border of Bosnia...but this.
 * No. I am still intrigued by all those rumors that Ratko Mladic was arrested in Romania or Bosnia last year though...if you ask me frankly, something smells horrible bad altogether about Mladic.
 * I am convinced that Karadzic is not anywhere in Serbia, what's more, I'm becoming sure he ill never be found.
 * As for Goran Hadzic, anything may change with him, even despite there is no information currently, over the following months (hope not years). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you think Karadzic and Mladic will simply be announced to be dead once they are dead, and that Hadzic may yet be found? — Nightstallion 21:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that Karadzic will in 2026 be announced that he died of old-age illness 9 years before that, when they discover a corpse in Argentina and identify it. I'm sure Hadzic will show up in the end somewhere. As for Mladic...I just don't know what think. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
Another good thing. Return of confiscated and usurped property after 1999 has finally started. First 100 of the 40,000 cases have just been successfully finished. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good! — Nightstallion 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A final name for PM appeared, Boris Tadic is seriously considering Mirko Cvetkovic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods — Nightstallion 11:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Anthem of Kosovo
Here. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've heard it. Better than ours, but then that's not too hard. — Nightstallion 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To my personal opinion the Soviet/Russian and our (Yugoslavian/Polish/PanSlavic) are the most beautiful anthems.
 * Germany/Austria-Hungary's beautiful too. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And while I am very much aware of Communist propaganda, by God I miss its incredibly oh-so-much inspiring music, I really, really do. Today's political marketing is totally a-musical. The Democrats use modernist music, the Populists some trash patriotic overworking, the Radicals steal music from the Lord of the Rings or Pirates of the Caribbean, while the Liberals copy Obama... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods I can understand that... — Nightstallion 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

About a revision in the treaty of lisbon
Hi, I'm an Icelander and I noticed that the image that is used here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Enlargement_and_secession falsely implies that Iceland and Norway are about to join EU. The fact of the matter is that EU has been mentioned as an option in local discussion but there are no plans of even beginning discussion to join EU. The current government has made that quite clear and if Iceland is to join EU, it will not happen the next 10-15 years. So I'm asking why you did that revision and putting up false information about Icelands stand against the EU? This is an highly political matter and is taken quite seriously and can send a scewed image of us.

I previously asked the creator of that image to remove Iceland of that list but with no success. It would be rather sad if administrators here are enforcing false information here without the creators citing any reference.

The image states that Iceland is 'debating' membership, but it is not debating it any more then other countries that are outside the EU so by that all countries outside the EU could be colored yellow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohlynsson (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're absolutely wrong there. The image just shows in which countries EU membership is a matter of serious discussion -- as you can see from the sources in List of European Union member states by accession, Iceland obviously is among them. — Nightstallion 09:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm born and raised politically aware Icelander and the only serious talk about EU is the stability of the Euro since the currency fluctuation here has been way too much. We, along with Norway and Lichtenstein are members of EEA and that gives us access to the inner markets of EU, so the only real reason for us to join EU is for the Euro. But we have also been discussing other options as tying the currency to other currencies or to abandon the floating currency. So the discussion here is more about the currency/food prices then membership to EU. I find the image to give wrong image of our standing to the EU, as our only current interest to the EU is the Euro. I care much for the integrity of wikipedia since I use it much for science and history reference and that's why I'd like our stand to the EU to be portrayed as accurately as possible. We are in fact in just as much debate to join the EU as other countries that are not in the EU - discussing the pros and cons - and that's why it feals like that colouring is way out of line. Sincerely, Óli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.139.3 (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm -- so? All the countries which are discussing the pros and cons of joining the EU should be coloured correctly, yes. The map in the article I linked to does that, and the image you object to will soon do that, too. That should be fine then, right? — Nightstallion 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it does not emphasize Iceland specifically over other countries that should give a more accurate image. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.139.3 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine. — Nightstallion 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Negotiations coming to a close
PUPS and JS are ready to go with ZES on repeated elections. As DS can only gain from them and SPS possibly not pass the census, their Kostunicoid policy ends - as all the minorities have firmly stood on Boris Tadic's side. They gave up the PM request and, in nominal terms, accepted the Democrats' offer. DSS (lol!) is very furious with the 'official' negotiations that are led and is terminating them. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Retired leader stated "We have received DSS' legal analysis on the pensions, and we are awaiting the continuation and the remainder." Kostunica angrily responded: "Do it yourselves!" --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest news: DSS-NS formally terminated the negotiations, official began between SPS-PUPS-JS and ZES. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * YES! At least some good news after Ireland. sighs — Nightstallion 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In these negotiations Vuk Jeremic appeared as another possible Premier.
 * Btw, what's wrong the Irish? I see (myself) no point to vote No.... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Irish are not the problem, they're just a symptom. The problem is that for decades, the European elite has declined to listen to the people at all -- this has been becoming a larger and larger problem steadily over the last twenty years, and now we're at a full-blown crisis. I'm personally really rather down right now -- I hope the European leaders have some kind of idea as to how they will restore trust into the EU in the voters, e.g. by some kind of regular directly democratic input from the European people(s), but I'm really very pessimistic right now. :( :( :( — Nightstallion 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. I look at the Mayors of Rome and London... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh? How do you mean? — Nightstallion 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not very nice persons, are they? :)
 * I have a strange theory. I have a feeling Western Europe is going quite "bad", and that the roles might change soon, with Eastern Europe actually leading the EU (refer to the elections in Serbia and Poland). Austria and Slovenia already "took over", perhaps Poland and Serbia shall be the leaders of the EU in the near future? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Johnson isn't that bad, I believe...?
 * Yeah, would be fine with me. But that still doesn't address the problems. :( — Nightstallion 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, neither is Tomislav Nikolic... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What have you heard about Johnson that I haven't heard? AFAIK, he's a rather eccentric but harmless liberal conservative Tory... — Nightstallion 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I probably have a worse opinion on him then he really deserves, but he's far too eccentric to be mayor of a huge capital city. Regarding the allegations on racism, I've heard far far more stories than his Wikipedia article states on the controversy section. But you know me. I always search for perfectionists. I hate Bozidar Djelic (good to see that he's not the PM candidate) just because he became incredibly rich because of the State over the years. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I don't really like him -- but I don't know whether I liked Livingstone much better... Either way, he's certainly far less terrible than Alemanno, that's certain. — Nightstallion 20:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Milutin Mrkonjic leaks to the public the top is considering purges of the hard-core current in the party (the Belgrade City Board) followers of Milosevic's policy. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Sounds good. — Nightstallion 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No merger between SRS and SSJ shall occur. The Radicals tricked SSJ, giving them only two seats instead of five, because they won so little seats (they expected 90 minimum). Either SSJ will brake off from their parliamentary club in the parliament, or they shall be dragging in courts... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. :) — Nightstallion 00:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As for good news about Sanjak, conciliation of the Sakjaklias can finally begin, as the SDA-led Bosniac political alliance signed a long-term agreement of mutual cooperation with G17+, the identical one SDP has with DS. The two sides shall be united in a common government, and through the coalition of DS & G17+. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. — Nightstallion 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This morning high-ranking DSS officials declared DSS should not make a coalition with SRS and search cooperation with DS. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So they're now limping to political oblivion, it seems? — Nightstallion 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lisbon

 * Thank you for your message on my talk page. Short answer: fuck knows. Numerous possibilities have been floated, all of which are either dramatic (throw Ireland out of the EU - can't happen) or pathetic (ignore Ireland and continue ratification). We won't know until the meeting next week.


 * I can't tell you what will happen (Barroso doesn't phone me, oddly enough) but I can speculate on what the major actors will want to do: the Commission will want to continue with ratification and so will the French and Germans. The Poles have their reservations, but they're upset with the Irish. All the governments want Lisbon or something similar to happen (none of the people do, but that's beside the point at this level), but the Irish have given the Czechs/UK/Dutch an excuse to exercise their own reservations and, ever so reluctantly, cease ratification. So off the top of my head, I'd say no: Lisbon won't happen, tho' don't quote me.


 * It's the Croats I feel sorry for: I know Balkan issues are of interest to you (see above), and the possibility of Lisbon delaying (or even preventing) Croatia's entry into the EU is non-trivial. I would have thought that the plight of a smaller nation reeling from the effects of a war after leaving a more powerful federation would have resonances with the Irish. But that would require a view of the world outside its own borders, and Western Europe doesn't do that these days.


 * The Lisbon rejection bears out a theme in Western European Euroscepticism (as you know, I'm rewriting the IND/DEM article: they're not as bad as their rep suggests) that I've noticed: the EU is considered a remote, bureaucratic, corrupt organisation (which is fair enough: that's exactly what it is) but nobody is willing or able to take the steps to reform it or leave it. Lisbon, despite its manifest failings, was an attempt to redress this by giving the EU a mechanism to speed up decision making and reform itself, and now it can't. The result is stagnation.


 * Meanwhile, the US has all the aircraft carriers, Russia has all the gas, the Middle East has all the oil, and China and India are modernising themselves fast. All these actors (well, not the Middle East) can present a unified point of view and mobilise armed forces and billions of dollars to enforce their point of view: Europe can't even rig a referendum. They can legitimately claim that the EU cannot act coherently, and any body with aspirations to being a world power must be able to do so: Europe cannot. And any continent that cannot defend itself will have a rough time in the 21st century.


 * As you can tell, I currently have little to offer other than blogosphere speculation and my own Weltanschauung on the matter. I am plowing thru RTE archives to try and timeline the events of the past three months and the aftermath, but that will take time and the meeting is next week, so you would be best advised to wait for that.


 * Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for that splendid summary! I personally think we'll see one of three developments:
 * a referendum rerun in Ireland after a year or so, with a declaration explicitly guaranteeing that neither abortion nor the tax rate nor anything else dear to the Irish will ever be so much as touched without their consent;
 * the development of a "core Europe", which adopts a more radical and more federal version of the Treaty of Lisbon (common defence, *real* common foreign politics, and so on), with the rest of the EU member states forming an "outer ring" of members around them;
 * no "core Europe", but an attempt to draft a new treaty with as much input from the people as humanly possible.
 * Maybe I'm being too optimistic with either of those two last points, though... What do you think? Either way, I think throwing out Ireland is absolutely idiotic and will never happen, and the other possibilities floated (forcing Ireland to choose between "continued EU membership and ratifying Lisbon" vs "withdrawal from the EU" -- seems VERY tyrannical, and if there's one thing the EU doesn't need, that's even more bad press; or some legal tricky maneuver which makes the Lisbon Treaty come into effect for all states but Ireland somehow -- that will never work, I'd expect) are highly unlikely... — Nightstallion 08:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks for the question! Here's my prediction, copied from my talk page:


 * What's certain is that everyone knows that renegotiation of Lisbon is meaningless and that 26 will ratify it by the end of 2008 (the Czech president will probably be persuaded). The European Council will then make the irish government put the same Lisbon, with some extra clarifying declarations, to a new referendum.


 * If the Lisbon II referendum fails, time would probably ensure that the Conservatives have taken over in London. They will perhaps do as they've said, and demand renegotiation. Federalist leaders will not accept that, and a the UK and Ireland are in some way legally forced out of the integration mainstream (for example, the EU can be refounded without them). Merkel, Juncker and Sarkozy will push ahead, ratify a constitutional treaty, rename the EU "Federation of Europe", and create a foreign minister and a common defence. Later, Ireland will probably rejoin. By then, perhaps NI and Scotland are independent and willing to accede. Apart from the last bit of science fiction, I am pretty sure that a double 'no' will result in this direction. Because now, parliamentary ratification is the only thing that is ever going to be used, and continental leaders are undoubtedly extremely eager to continue integration freely in parliaments.


 * But seriously, I am afraid of what the UK Conservative party could do. House of Lords will on 19 June vote in favour of Lisbon, and the UK "instruments of ratification" will be deposited in Rome. After that, can a new government demand renegotiation? - SSJ ☎ 13:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to my reply above, I still cannot tell you what will happen. But I've just read thru five months of RTE reports so I can tell you with confidence what did happen. The sources and timeline are in my sandbox - that is a working uncompleted document that is not meant to be read and is submitted purely for verification. But my preliminary findings are as follows:

Lisbon: why was it rejected?
It is possible to interpret the referendum as a symptom of Western European Euroscepticism. Some expressed the aspect of that school of thought that states that the EU is undemocratic, corrupt, distant but essentially fixable (the Jens-Peter Bonde school of Euroscepticism). Some expressed the other aspect, the one that states the EU is undemocratic, corrupt, distant and should be destroyed (the Nigel Farage school of Euroscepticism). All expressed dissatisfaction with the status-quo. The "Yes" side gave only negatives ("Vote "yes" or things will get bad"). The "No" side gave positives ("the treaty can be renegotiated" - Sinn Fein, "we can do this better" - Libertas). Few expressed specifically anti-EU statements, but many phrased their pro-EU sentiments in reference to an idealised/fantasised EU and against its actual format. ("I'm not against the EU per se, I'm against this EU")

Ireland, post-Celtic Tiger, has become a archetypical Western European economy and a net contributor to the EU. As such, it feels in a position to query its contribution and cast a sceptical eye on the EU. This was an example of such.

The "Yes" crowd can point to some excuses: abortion played a minor (but not crucial) role. Misinformation abounded: the story of an elderly lady voting "no" because she feared her sons would be recruited into an Euroarmy. The concept that the vote would retain Ireland's commissioner, despite the fact that they're due to lose it under the Treaty of Nice. Yet there were failures of the "Yes" crowd. Despite repeated statements that Ireland's neutrality was safe and that it would retain its WTO veto, Irish actors failed to believe them, as evidenced by their continued request for reassurance on these points ("Do we keep our veto?" "Yes." "But do we really keep our veto?" "Yes". "But do we really keep our veto?" and so on ad nauseam). Related to this was the conspicuous failure of the European Commission to communicate. Barroso tried but was simply not believed. Wallstrom was nowhere to be seen.

A potent factor in Lisbon's failure was Lisbon itself. An impenetrable legal document, it could not be understood, and even the Referendum Commission (nonpartisan body set up to explain it) could not explain it. Its lack of clarity meant that misrepresentations could not be corrected, or even firmly stated that they were misrepresentations.

In the final analysis, Lisbon was rejected by Ireland due to:
 * The incomprehensibility of the document, making it difficult to sort truth from fiction
 * Ireland's adoption of Western Europe Euroscepticism, with its emphasis on the democratic deficit and rejection of a European identity
 * The failure of the "yes" faction to present a positive case for adoption
 * The success of the "no" faction to present a positive case for rejection

Post-rejection, there was a spectacular schism in reactions.
 * The European print media universally blamed the EU for such a complex document and noted that the rejection was a problem for the EU that may lead to its disintegration: their statements then diverged on whether they thought this was a good or bad thing. Please note that very few papers proferred solutions, even implausible ones.
 * The European Union personnel (Barrosso, et al) universally want to continue with the treaty.
 * The European Union governments are mixed: France/Belgium/Spain/Poland/Netherlands? want full speed ahead, UK/Czech don't.

In short, nobody knows what to do.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I swear to God, this is a soap opera
Latest updates on "the Young and the Eurorestless" Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * France & Germany are dialing back the Cromwell rhetoric: Kouchner's been muzzled
 * Czech Republic wants to stake Lisbon before the corpse can revive
 * Merkozy are working the room: Angela's off to Poland to persuade them to ratify, Nicolas's gone to Czechia to do likewise
 * But what can they give them? Clue: give them what they want. What do Poland & Czechia want? Croatia in the EU ASAP. So Merkozy have leverage: ratify, or Croatia stays in Balkan hell forever, capisce?
 * Meanwhile, back in Ireland, Gerry Adams (the only man who can deliver a "yes" to a second referendum) is writing a shopping list. "Dear EU: Give me X or Lisbon gets it. Hugs, G." They will give him anything compatible to the treaty, and are already working on ways to make it happen (e.g. keep the number of commissioners but - and this is where it gets Eurocrazy - rotate the voting rights)
 * Irony upon ironies: Britain (possibly Europe's most eurosceptic nation) is now the closest ally and new best friend of Ireland (formerly Europe's most europhilic nation, and one with good reason to hate Britain). Next week: the Dog&Cat alliance.
 * Yeah, judging from current news reports, the plan is to let them vote again with a clarifying protocol and some changes. Rotating the voting rights doesn't sound *that* crazy, actually -- it'll still be a waste of money to have so many commissioners, but it still helps to streamline decision-making... — Nightstallion 07:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Austria
Did Austria ever have long, highly politicized arguments, tons of books written, countless public argumentations, even conflicts altogether with a lot of malice, on the question are Austrians ethnic Germans or - just ethnic Austrians? Or anything similar to that? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's quite simple: Before 1938, nearly everyone was of the opinion that Austrians were ethnic Germans. Not all of them wanted to act on it (only the German Nationals, the Deutschnationale), but still. After 1945, everyone was of the opinion that Austrians have never been ethnic Germans... Well, okay, some far-right populists (VdU, then FPÖ and now FPÖ and BZÖ) probably believe it, but it's not really a topic of debate any more.
 * I expect there'll be a couple of books and theses on this, but I don't really know, actually. Why do you ask? — Nightstallion 12:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just curiosity. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. What about the Assembly? Is it active yet? When will it be elected for the first time? — Nightstallion 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In due time. No, it was just officially scheduled today, symbolically for Saint Vitus' Day (28 June 2008, the day of the Battle of Amsfeld) to be held in Priština, and a parliamentary majority was formed today. It's official name shall be Assembly of the Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohia.
 * BTW, in case you didn't notice, this emerged in Vienna.
 * Oh, and great news from BH. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot!
 * No, hadn't seen it...
 * SAA? Yeah. :) — Nightstallion 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and the parliamentary majority is SRS, DSS, SPS and GIG. The opposition DS shall boycott it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Because? — Nightstallion 11:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Beats me. They muttered something about the negotiations for a government (of the Republic), but I don't get it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(reindent) shrugs Ah well. Incidentally, what will the factual DS policy on Kosovo and EU be? — Nightstallion 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What precisely do you mean? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, officially, they want both. Factually, everyone knows that's not possible, so what will DS do in regard to Kosovo? — Nightstallion 13:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows that one is impossible, so why not want both? :) It's not as if it's a choice anyway...there is absolutely no change in DS' policy from the beginning of this year, if that's what you mean, and the ICJ Advisory Opinion still remains. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I just wanted to know what that would factually mean. So they'll try to regain Kosovo via an ICJ Advisory Opinion -- but if that fails? — Nightstallion 19:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Continue to do what they have been doing. Attempt to block Kosovo's (further) recognition in every way they can. G17+ has repeatedly mentioned the Republic of Srbska recently. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And when or if they see they can't stop or revert it? — Nightstallion 17:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've told you everything. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Map of the European Union
Is it also available as a not-single-entity? --80.104.14.51 (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? There's a couple of maps which show the EU's member states with internal borders. — Nightstallion 13:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean that. Are there any of these which are SVG-grafics? --80.104.14.51 (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:EU_map_brown.svg, for instance. — Nightstallion 14:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --80.104.14.51 (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tyrol
So what about Tyrolean state election, 2008? Does CFT need an article? --Checco (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I don't really know what to write about them... Apart from "splinter from ÖVP, got more votes than expected". — Nightstallion 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A two-lines article with translation and some links would be very ok! Comments on the election? --Checco (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. — Nightstallion 09:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as you know, I dislike the ÖVP a lot, but I'm rather sad the Greens lost so much. The SPÖ is currently in a sorry state in Austria, I hope its image gets better when Faymann takes over from Gusenbauer completely (likely to happen by the end of the year, if you ask me). — Nightstallion 09:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that CFT and FPÖ stealed votes not simply to ÖVP, but also to SPÖ and the Greens. How was this possible?
 * What is the most important reason why you dislike ÖVP? --Checco (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Protest votes? FPÖ and SPÖ share the worker votes, and CFT and SPÖ+Greens share the anti-van Staa votes...
 * Mh. Among the top reasons: Cynic politicians (the ÖVP behaves as if it was meant to win the election in 2006, and voters just were too stupid to realise that they should have reelected the ÖVP), religion in politics (doesn't belong there!), opposition to important social changes (civil unions for homosexual couples, anti-smoking laws), and so on and so forth. The only reason why I could like them is that they're strictly pro-EU. — Nightstallion 09:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason why you may like ÖVP is what would make me distance more from it! It's always good to hold different views... I find difficult to understand why ÖVP opposes anti-smoking laws: it's simply non-sense to me and in Italy these laws were introduced by the centre-right. One last question for you: in what sense ÖVP puts religion in politics? I didn't know that it was so strictly Christian... --Checco (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's the Christian-democratic party... And I strictly oppose any influence or correlation of religion in politics. — Nightstallion 10:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on that. Definitely. That's why I defend my few social conservative views not on the basis of religion. The problem is that, at least in Italy, it seems that you can't hold social conservative views because the Church supports them... --Checco (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods — Nightstallion 10:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How are the last opinion polls about the general election? --Checco (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ÖVP 33%, SPÖ 32%, FPÖ 16%, Greens 14%, BZÖ 3%, approximately. — Nightstallion 17:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The next election will be a close race... --Checco (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, especially if Faymann takes over... — Nightstallion 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Alliance of Democrats
You may be interested in this... --Checco (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, interesting! — Nightstallion 17:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Free South Tyrol
I was impressed that you put "Free South Tyrol" in your banner as even the majority of South Tyroleans doesn't support the idea: the "autonomy" status is very good for them! By the way, I agree with you, even if I wouldn't have put it in my banner. --Checco (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't do it -- I support it in principle, but not enough to put it in the banner. — Nightstallion 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that: I did not understand that it was a vandalism. --Checco (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. — Nightstallion 18:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

South Korea
Could we find out percentaces for the South Korean parliamentary election, 2008? Adam Carr gives the percentages for the larger parties and then there is the percentage for the New Progressive Party in the article. Is there a electoral commission or something where to see the results? --Checco (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's here, but good luck in finding ANYTHING on that terrible page. — Nightstallion 18:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Party conventions
Some weeks ago you asked me when the party conventions would have taken place. Here you have the dates: Democratic Left already had its party assembly, where Claudio Fava replaced Fabio Mussi. --Checco (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: 4-5-6 July, Riccardo Nencini seems the favourite over Pia Elda Locatelli
 * Greens: 18-19-20 July, don't know anything about the possible candidates for leadership
 * PdCI: 18-19-20 July, Oliviero Diliberto's leadership is contended by Katia Belillo
 * PRC: 24-25-26-27 July, close race between Nichi Vendola and Paolo Ferrero

And then there are the Radicals. It's always difficult to understand their moves, so my explanations won't be very clear. As far as I understand they are trying to form a network of those in the centre-left who are not Democrats: members of PS, PRC, SD and the Greens have joined the idea and they also elected a coordinator, Mauro Del Bue (PS). Also members of the social-democratic faction of PdL participated to the meetings and this is part of Del Bue's strategy of re-uniting with those former fellow social democrats. I wasn't reallt able to understand what could be the outcome of the process. --Checco (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Last thing: PD will have a meeting of its Constituent Assembly this weekend. --Checco (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! And what do you think will come out of these meetings? — Nightstallion 08:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I find difficult to understand exactly what Radicals are doing with those Socialists, Greens and Communists. What is sure is that I don't think it is likely in the medium-term that Forza Italia's social democrats will leave the centre-right and join forces with other former Socialists.
 * About the Democratic Assembly, I can tell you that Veltroni will probably announce a tougher line towards Berlusconi. Indeed PD leader has a problem: too much factional leaders of the party are turning against him, even if they did not come out clearly yet. The Assembly should also elect the new party President, but, as there is no agreement yet between factions on this, it is likely that there won't be a new President at all.
 * About the other parties I can tell you that, while Nencini, Vendola and Belillo are proposing to come to pacts with PD in some way, Locatelli, Ferrero and Diliberto propose "identitarian" solutions for their parties. This is definitely a over-simplification (indeed, while Ferrero and Diliberto, are old-fashioned communists, Locatelli leads the modernizers of her party), but it's just for you to have an idea about internal debates. --Checco (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's possible that at least some of them will ally more closely with PD with new leadership? — Nightstallion 10:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is possible, but I don't know what kind of alliances. Take PS: Nencini is the canidate of party regional and local leaders, regional and provincial deputies, who were elected in coalition with the Democrats; they want basically to preserve these alliances at the regional and local level. --Checco (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Well, we'll see. — Nightstallion 16:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Berlusconi and justice, you may be interested in watching this survey. --Checco (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I could start arguing now that right-wing politicians tend to have more problems with courts and accepting judgments against them, but I suppose we'd just start quarrelling again, so let's leave that topic. ;) Thanks for the link, though. — Nightstallion 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In Italy it is definitely the contrary, apart from Berlusconi, for the other countries I really don't know. What is sure is that people tend to absolve the politicians they like more easily! --Checco (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Off topic, I found the words to explain what I meant to: look at this analysis from the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6fe9ea4a-3f2b-11dd-8fd9-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1), it is very balanced and I agree on just everything. You won't and I'm not interested in convincing you on anything (but that Italy is a broken country and a fragile democracy, Berlusconi or not Berlusconi: it is the system, non just people, the problem!), but at least you will have a good explanation of the different opinion (which is mainstream among Italian voters) from yours. Have a good weekend. --Checco (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. I'm well aware that Berlusconi is just a symptom of the problems of the Italian democracy, but in my eyes he's a very extreme symptom. — Nightstallion 19:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you on this, but, as I consider Berlusconi as a temporary feature of Italian politics (history and voters will judge if he has been a solution or a worsening), I prefer to put my eyes more on Italian justice as a whole than on the man and I really think that restraining the power and the privileges of judges is a matter of democracy in Italy for anyone who believes in freedom, democracy and the rule of law. --Checco (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can agree with that, too -- we just emphasise different points at this time. ;) — Nightstallion 09:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's why I like to discuss with you. --Checco (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ) Glad to hear that. — Nightstallion 10:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I annoy you again with the Forza Italia issue. I cancelled the refs in the infobox for stylistic reasons as they are a repetition of those present in the body of the article and I removed the OR tag from the "Ideology" section as there is nothing which is not referenced, but C mon opposed the move. I also produced new sources and removed some sentences which could be controversial. I think that there is no reason for repeating twice the same references (we don't do this in any single article about political parties) and for leaving the tag, and I'm asking your mediation as administrator as C mon and I clash with each other ever time we meet. Sorry again. --Checco (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think having the references at one point in the article should be enough; about the OR, I'm not sure. Which part is contested? — Nightstallion 10:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On the refs' issue, you can remove the references from the infobox and leave them in the body of the article.
 * On the OR issue, I really don't know what is OR for C mon but it is a matter of fact that the "Ideology" section is perfectly referenced. Tags should be removed when the reason why they were inserted is no longer true. If you believe that something in that section should be improved, you are welcome: my only goal is to improve articles. --Checco (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I made some changes, I added citations and references. I hope that now the tag could be removed. --Checco (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you mediate on the case? I think that now the section is fully referenced and that C mon's arguments (in my talk page) are a little flawed given the sources, and then there is the issue of refs repetition. --Checco (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I prefer not to interfere in that discussion if at all possible; hope that's okay. — Nightstallion 07:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not okay (as in this way C mon is able to do what he wants both with references and tags, as I don't like to impose things as he does, and we definitely need a mediation), but I respect your decision. --Checco (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

News
A shocking twist. Boris Tadic on the conferece stated: "We shall continue the negotiations with the Socialists...which we haven't started yet." and then everyone started laughing in the room including himself. Despite Velja spat as much as he can on the Socialists, the SPS, PUPS & JS officially decided today to continue the negotiations with the Populists and the Radicals. Milutin Mrkonjić's (so far lobbist for DS) incredible twist is when he said in an interview said "Europe can eat shit!"

BTW, heard about that Ustasha in Austria? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? What's going on now?
 * Yeah, heard about it. A disgrace. — Nightstallion 13:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now's nothing going on. In fact nothing at all has been going on for the past 10 days.
 * On the other hand, the thugs from the 1990s all were finally sentenced (State robbers of the State, assassins of Zoran Djindjic and the rest of the band), after appealing and a retrial on a higher lever. They were sentenced to 257 years of prison in total, and Vuk Drašković (some attempted to assassinate him, more than once) stated that they would deserve death penalty. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm... okay. And what happens now?
 * ... the death penalty was outlawed in Serbia some time ago... — Nightstallion 15:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We shall see. This could go on for months, just like last year, remember?
 * If someone almost murdered you twice, you'd have the same opinions.
 * Serge Brammertz forgets about everything Carla del Ponte did in the past and affirms a no-compromise attitude. He accused the Government of the Republic of Croatia for willingly and consciously hiding most of the info regarding the alleged joint criminal enterprise to expel the Serb populace from Croatia and the related atrocities that had occurred. He officially asked the ICTY to issue a demand to Zagreb that the related documents be handed over within 15 days. The Deputy Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor stated that such a thing will not occur, because there are no such documents. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods But only until September...
 * No. I'd want him in prison for life, but not murdered.
 * Interesting. — Nightstallion 15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In Croatia there was recently a massive concert of one of the most successful singers in Croatia, Marko Perkovic "Thompson", who is highly controversial for his somewhat Ustashi beliefs and is banned in many countries. The national television depicted the crowds singing Ustasha songs, as well as chanting "Kill, kill, kill the Serb!" The local chief of police has filed an application against him for inciting chauvinism in public places, but the Minister for Internal Affairs immediately suspended him and the Government stood to defend Thompson (as always, HDZ is Thompson's party). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know Thompson -- Jörg Haider recently invited him to Carinthia. sighs — Nightstallion 14:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and there is no life sentence (not anymore, at least). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, but forty years are okay, too. — Nightstallion 07:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Chancellor of Austria include the pre-1918? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * List of Ministers-President of Austria — Nightstallion 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the point? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, the states were completely different and not in continuity? The MPoA was in fact the Minister-President of Austria-Hungary, and Austria is not the legal successor of Austria-Hungary (there is no single legal successor). So we've got two different articles, which is only logical. — Nightstallion 10:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I also find illogical that I look for the Chancellors of the Austrian Empire, and then there is nothing at Chancellor of Austria. :) "Real" successor or not, this is the Wikipedia, and not the Legal Encyclopedia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an entirely different office, and the other list is at the bottom of the article -- where's the problem? Just to clarify -- there WAS no "Chancellor of the Austrian Empire", only a Minister-President of Austria-Hungary. — Nightstallion 14:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Metternich a Chancellor? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely -- he was State Chancellor, which is a different title, possibly something like the finance minister. Metternich held a lot of offices (foreign minister, interior minister, ... -- although all of those were called differently back then), but he was never head of government of Austria-Hungary. — Nightstallion 14:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A NGO founded in Mostar called "Government of Herzeg-Bosnia in the Shadow" designed at lobbying a third Croat entity. It upholds it will even hold elections and referendums in the future perhaps. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd prefer a de-ethnicisation of Bosnia, but I suppose if we have to have this ethnic entities, then a Croat entity would only be fair... — Nightstallion 14:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's it. This time it's final. SPS-PUPS-JS presidencies and assemblies approved a coalition with the Europeists, negotiations scheduled for DS' headquarters in 20:00 (that is, now).

Tomislav Nikolic calls Ivica Dacic a traitor and claims he was subdued to financial influence of corrupted tycoons and threats from foreign ambassadors. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. :) — Nightstallion 19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * DSS adopted Vojislav Kostunica's "Opposition Program", while the Radicals announce that they shall fight this new parliamentary majority with all strengths available, as that is a coalition aimed against Serbia and on the basis of opposition towards the Serbian people. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? — Nightstallion 09:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Israel
Difficult to know really; things can change completely at a moment's notice. Really it all comes down to Ehud Barak - if Labour leave the coalition, it will force early elections. However, it looks like Likud would probably win them (unless there is a big swing to Kadima if Livni wins the primaries (the most likely result at the moment)), so it would be a pretty stupid move (admittedly something which Barak is prone to...).

Just out of curiosity - why do you support the recognition of Kosovo, but not of Northern Cyprus? пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  15:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then let's hope that Barak isn't that stupid... sighs
 * Mostly because Northern Cyprus seceded because of a string of unfortunate circumstances (first the Greek attempt at Enosis, then the Turkish intervention which went a little bit too far, etc.), and because both groups on Cyprus are willing to compromise on the issue of reunification; whereas Kosovo was the subject of an intra-state war waged by Milosevic and can not reasonably be expected to remain part of the state which waged war against it. — Nightstallion 16:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like elections have been avoided, though Olmert will probably be replaced by Livni. I would say she is (very slightly) open to make more concessions. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like good news -- is it? — Nightstallion 18:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another update. I would say it is marginally good news - Livni is more likely to persuade public opinion on land for peace deals than Olmert (whose popularity ratings were in the low single figures - 3% at one point I believe). пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  23:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * nods At least something. When will the date be set? Could you write an article on the primary? — Nightstallion 08:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo-Metohijan Assembly
SRS - 17

DSS - 13

SPS - 4

DS - 3

G17+ - 1

GIG - 1

others - 4

Btw, the new color doesn't fit the eyes nicely. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The colour should be the lighter one you see at my notes page, but for some reason one of the newsletters above destroys my  tags... — Nightstallion  13:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is why Obama has become incredibly popular amongst the Serbian community, which has started to lobby for him in the presidential campaign. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Do the Serbs realise, however, that he does not call for the return of Kosovo to Serbia in any way? ;) — Nightstallion 07:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone thinks about that.
 * BTW, it was quite funny, to see the struggle between the Albanian and Serbian communities, for Clinton and Obama. Sometimes it was quite ridiculous. ;-) The Albanian community will likely be divided, a half will stand on Obama's side, but another part shall definitely side with the Republican candidate. The Serbian community is pretty strong in Illinois (from where he comes), where their representatives often lead local politics (Chicago being the largest Serb-populated city after Belgrade), and the Governor is the son of a Chetnik refugee. Some experts think that it is a likely possibility that they have influenced him to have a balanced attitude (note: he supports Kosovo independence and even approved the NATO bombing), free of stereotype against not just Serbs, but any group. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Well, I definitely agree with him. :) — Nightstallion 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter W. Galbraith testified at the trial of Ante Gotovina, Mladen Markač and Ivan Čermak, his testimony outbursting a huge public controversy and reaction in Croatia. Some consider it a crucial element in the process. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What did he say? — Nightstallion 19:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He said that the Croatian forces conducted after the Serbs fled a massive destruction and looting of their households and other property and that the Croatian authorities were well aware of that and did nothing to prevent it, because permitting it was a part of their policy. He claims it was their goal, as also can be seen in the fact that no one was processed at all under Tudjman for war crimes. He also stated that claims about isolated incidents that simply cannot be controlled are unfounded, because as he noticed himself, Croatia was a well-organized secular country with good control over the territories it had controlled.
 * Galbraith testified that the Croatian parliament immediately after Operation Storm adopted discriminatory laws on the return of refugees, designed to deceit those who didn't read them and technically disable the return of the Krajina Serbs as much as possible, claiming that the Croatian state core (the three indicted+): President Franjo Tuđman, Minister Gojko Sušak and Croatian commanders Janko Bobetko and Zvonimir Červenko have considered the Serb people in Croatia a strategic obstacle to Croatia's progress and from the start set forth an ethnically pure Republic of Croatia as their main plan in the war.
 * Galbraith also stated that he is not satisfied that the proponents of the Croatian version of the event (Serbs left Croatia because of irrational paranoia and fear and because they hated Croatia, several isolated unavoidable crimes occurred) have misused his own words from the day after Operation Storm that "the Operation in precise didn't feature ethnic cleansing because most of the population have fled", claiming that the crimes that happened are still huge and that there is only certainty that they would've been even a lot bigger had the Serbs stayed. So far we have many quotes from Tudjman how he talked that Serbs should be removed from Croatia (and expressing gratitude that only 3-4% shall remain in Croatia from now onwards), but Galbraith brought to the public some new quotes, quoting Gojko Susak from after the offensive stating that "Serbs were the cancer of Croatia" of Tudjman's Chief of Cabinet Hrvoje Šarinić, or "an ethnically pure area was finalized" by Gojko Susak. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... he's right, isn't he? — Nightstallion 20:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in most, probably. But the Croatian public is not yet open to that, the Homeland War is still in there sacred very deeply and emotionally, and is identical to what the Great Patriotic War was to the Soviets. A similar thing is with the Republic of Srbska, they might have admitted to cooperate with the Hague, but if you go and visit the place you'll see that Karadzic, Mladic...are all huge national heroes, an almost identical situation to the one in Croatia. Until only recently Banja Luka denied there was any atrocity of any kind in Srebrenica at all (except of Serbs). War was led on most of these two's soil, and that is the reason for such conservative opinions. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can partially understand that -- but they'll have to come to terms with their own past, especially if they want to join the EU. — Nightstallion 10:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can compare it to Serbia, where the public is greatly hugely divided onto two extreme halves, one of the two Serbias considering all those men heroes. The reason for that is that side from the Serbo-Albanian conflicts at the south and standard authoritarian oppression from the government, the people saw the true war only with the bombing. Or take Montenegro, which is purely open to its past, admitted and publicly recognized all crimes (from Montenegrin sovereignist to Serb nationalist) and completely willing to 'come in terms' with its past (aside from perhaps some ICTY indictees hiding).
 * Oh, and negotiations are (almost) complete. The Socialists shall hold the seat of Speaker, while the Prime Minister shall be Mirko Cvetkovic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Yeah, I know it's difficult, and even now there are people in Austria who have not come to terms with Austria's role in WWII (and then a lot more who know little about this), but it has to happen at some point. I hope the new DS government will help with that, and I hope once the left wins in Croatia and HDZ gets lost, it will also get better.
 * Sounds good. Will the Socialists really get the interior ministry? Sounds a bit controversial to me to give them such a sensitive ministry... — Nightstallion 13:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Socialists have proven to be hard negotiators and the Socialists are simply softened after Kostunica. When it comes to political trading, I don't think they have really learned much experience even after all the things Kostunica put them through. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean "the Democrats are softened", right? Well, it could be much worse, I suppose. — Nightstallion 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The trolls surrounded the Presidency today and stopped the parliamentary session. The Speaker and National Assembly organs were supposed to be held today. The session was rescheduled for tomorrow. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They won't stop it. ;) — Nightstallion 18:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well they're doing a fine job, today it took 12 hours (-lunchtime pause) to elect Slavica Djukic-Dejanovic of SPS for Speaker. Nothing else was done. She just scheduled the continuation of the assembly for tomorrow noon.
 * As for Prime Minister, Boris Tadic had a poll conducted in the membership, and most turned out positive for Bojan Pajtic, rather than Mirko Cvetkovic (or Vuk Jeremic, another option in the poll). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So the government is already agreed upon and just needs to be confirmed? — Nightstallion 10:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, I thought already told you that. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now official - Tadic has just picked Cvetkovic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good! When will the government be sworn in? — Nightstallion 06:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well SDP and SPO authorized DS to negotiate, and DS and G17+ signed a coalition treaty two days ago, turning their pre-electoral to a post- one, however the treaty between the already formed coalition and SPS still remains to be signed, as not all resources have yet been divided. It should be done by Monday. Everything has been arranged with the Bosniacs' participation in the government, but the problem arises with the Hungarians, who are necessary for a parliamentary majority. They have been offered the seat of a Deputy Prime Minister, but are extremely unsatisfied and have sent to Tadic an ultimatum to hand them a better offer by Monday. This is is extremely important, since LDP withdraw its support with the election of Slavica Djukic-Dejanovic for Speaker of the Parliament. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WTO template
Hi Nightstallion. I noticed that you edit the WTO article a fair amount and you might be interested in a discussion currently going on about deleting the  WTO template. Thanks--PatrickFlaherty (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. — Nightstallion 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina economic crisis
The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina faces bankruptcy. Today's reported opened that only 200 Euros remain in the budget. The situation is deeply and continually worsening from day to day over the past few years. The local Canton governments have, conflicted and each and isolationist towards one another, ate the entire budget and keep spending it like they're millionaires. What is worse, the federation is entering the 2008 local elections (incredibly important over there, as as always, nationalism arises and everyone competes to bring as much members of one of the three peoples to vote)m leading with false promises into an even worse debt.

FBiH, the more infrastructure advanced, bigger and more populated entity from the war, is in constant decline over the past few years. A large portion of the population is being pushed into poverty, and high population increase in certain parts only increases that. There are strikes and protests frequently, civil disorder in attacks against both the local governments and the Sarajevo one. The average wage, struggles to stop its fall.

On the other hand, the budget of the Republic of Srbska exceeds 150,000,000, and just keeps filling. The average wage has exceeded that of the Federation long ago, and it keeps rising. The only unrest in the other entity were just occasional in front of consulates of countries that recognized Kosovo independence. Steadily populated and not with a population boom, it has an averagely wealthy and well fed population. The Federation, due to slowly becoming "the hole of Bosnia-Herzegovina", has stopped attracting new investors, while investments are now pouring into Srbska, the economic strength of the secondary entity primarily due to incredibly immense investments Serbia made over the past decade.

Many fear that this would further lead the Srbska into alienation from the rest of the country, as the image today is that the Federation is drawing back Srbska and presents an obstacle in its European Integrations, fearing the examples of Slovenia and Montenegro (likewise situations). Others however, think that the new strength of the country could lie in economic dependence of the Federation on Srbska, as the greatest FBH's debt - is actually the one to Banja Luka, 20,000,000. OHR's slight shift towards the Serbs and away from the Bosniacs might explain this - the money is with the Serbs. Nationals however explain this phenomenon ethnically, that in the Federation there are two constantly bickering peoples, while the Serbs live just with themselves in their part. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * :( — Nightstallion 09:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Any idea / advice? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides putting FBiH's budget under the complete oversight of OHR and throwing more money at them? No... You? — Nightstallion 15:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Been there, tried that. The UN is excessively reluctant on lending more cash (several Western countries are open critics), and the only option would be to forfeit loans and pay them out to Srbska and others, and that would be a far too big and charitable move to actually succeed - the only time it was offered was by Washington to Belgrade to accept independence of Kosovo, and even that would not be as drastic as to an entity that has completely bankrupted.
 * The Serbs are growing continually discontent, as through the national reserves their money is leaking into the black hole called Federation of B-H, and what is following is a total split of the two's financial reserves. The common authorities in Sarajevo are facing a big problem, they must either align themselves to Banja Luka rather than traditionally the federal authorities, or accept greater factual independence of the two entities.
 * Solution? Well, for one thing, I think that this is one of the final warnings of the society that political reform is necessary immediately, and no longer a limbo with so-called reforms that occurred in from 1996 to 2007. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. — Nightstallion 06:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And like wanted, the Croats are boycotting the federal government. They claim they are being misrepresented and will return only when a proportional number of Croats to the 1991 population census. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * sighs I still think having multiethnic cantons instead would be the best idea, but the Serbs won't accept that, I suppose. — Nightstallion 08:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some issues
You're the admin. Could you please take a look here? Thanks-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Elections templates
How do you like the way I integrated these special new (to me at least?) templates? Any suggestion?

Could you also explain them a bit? So that I can fill them in correctly. :P --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me -- what do you need explained? — Nightstallion 10:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why only three? Should I add a third to the 2008 template? Should I note the political party (DS) or leave it as it is (ZES)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can have up to six parties in the template; I think you should add all relevant parties, so that would be just ZES and SRS for the last election. I think you should use something like "ZES (DS)". — Nightstallion 10:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at the 2000, only one is missing (3/4 are in the template), but I mess up adding the last one. According to that logic, shouldn't we also just leave DOS solely? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because SRS and SPS were large *before* the election and still significant afterwards. — Nightstallion 11:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got also some problems with this. The losses for SNP-NS-DSS are shown for SL, which has the changes shown nowhere. Also the question remains whether just to put DPS-SDP as relevant, or also PzP, as all three opposition lists are equally relevant. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Missing "=". — Nightstallion 11:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And the 3rd major opposition? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, how to categorize the colors beneath them (a refresher course needed). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? — Nightstallion 11:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those strips of colors beneath images. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how do you want to "categorise" them? — Nightstallion 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that there is some specific criteria. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, we just use the party's main colour. — Nightstallion 14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then DPS CG's should be changed to red. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and finally done! :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and after rumors about a referendum on recognition of independence of Kosovo in Montenegro, the conclusion is that it will not be done anyway before the election. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh? Rumours about a referendum? Interesting, hadn't heard about that yet... — Nightstallion 10:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The anti-constitution ranks of the opposition are not satisfied PzP didn't bring the whole event to the referendum, Milo's weakest point. SNP CG officially requested a referendum on Kosovo independence, as a means to defeat the government. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

- Prime Minister Dodik's first statement: "the Republic of Srbska should think about seeking secession in order to speed up European integrations, as the Federation is drawing the country backwards". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch. — Nightstallion 23:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion in it.Wiki
Now it's the turn of Italian Liberal Right: it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Destra Liberale Italiana. --Checco (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And also of the Federation of Italian Liberals: it:http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Federazione dei Liberali Italiani. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

News
Tadic and Jeremic finished their route campaign in Africa, in which they received assurance from the African countries that they will not recognize Kosovo yet, and support the incoming motion for ICJ's Advisory Opinion. He finished consulting with Medvedev, and will meet over the following months other leaders of countries that have not yet recognized independence of Kosovo, but as he says, also expects some form of support for the motion even from those countries that did recognize, as an act of good will.

The new government shall have a new feature: the "Golden Salvation". In case of a 50%:50% vote, it gives the power to the Prime Minister to decide in his side's favor, to disable possible blockade. The Ministry for Economy shall be considerably expanded with a hold of almost all economic-related affairs in the country. Despite announcements of no Kosovo-Metohija Ministry, the Socialists demanded that and shall take it over.

The Community Assembly of Kosovo-Metohija is having neither legislative nor executive authorities, but solely as a connection between the 24 Serbian municipalities. DS and G17+ are waiting on the government's official attitude and are for now still boycotting it. UNMIK shall not process or make a move against it, neither will KFOR use force to obstruct its work, but secure it, rather. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. Interesting, thanks. — Nightstallion 07:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Republic of Srbska is suing the United Nations and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the crimes committed in Srebrenica --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ... erm, only states can sue...? — Nightstallion 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How are then various Bosnian organizations suing the UN and the Dutch?
 * Seriously now, Holland is so God-forbid messed up with these Balkan affairs, I think that the Dutch are heavily pissed off right now. They are much more Balkan than Balkan countries themselves like Bulgaria or Romania.
 * Oh, and according to the research conducted on EU, 67% would vote YES on a hypothetical referendum, 20% would vote NO and the remainder (13%) would abstain. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And check out the new government over at Template:Government of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly not at the ICJ, where only states can sue.
 * nods — Nightstallion 00:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #18
♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Naser Oric
...appeal for the 2 year sentence for command responsibility rejected. The Appeal council also acquitted him of the charges he was convicted thus far. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. — Nightstallion 06:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The altogether created situation could perhaps lead to an altogether end to Serbia's cooperation with the Hague (after Ramush Haradinaj's verdict and with SPS in the government especially, another interesting thing being Palma's self-contradicting opinion that no cooperation with the Hague Tribunal should occur). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not good... — Nightstallion 11:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Montenegro will recognize Kosovo likely by 2010. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh, at least something. Confirmation from where? — Nightstallion 11:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Political analysts claiming that there is absolutely no chance of recognition before the scheduled parliamentary election (in late 2009). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, sounds logical. — Nightstallion 13:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
Archive? Since this page is 231 kb, it's at browser-breaking size. I realize that you're running low on letters of the Greek alphabet - may I suggest capitals? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, what about mine then? Or perhaps Joy's? :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I archive precisely every 100 sections, and we're only at 79 so far... — Nightstallion 06:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) made it to Featured List!
Hi there,

I just wanted to say thanks for your contribution (directly or indirectly) to have the previous article in Wikipedia, now listed as a Featured List. This will be the first of a set of articles with similar topics for several countries of the Eurozone. The BEHAG is to reach a Featured Topic.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BEHAG? — Nightstallion 11:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Typo, should be BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goal) Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Good luck! — Nightstallion 13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion
An important discussion on ''Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? '' is open here. We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note as you are a member of WikiProject Council --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 12:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New Montenegrin Poll
Well, here it goes. Filip Vujanovic has kept the 2nd place in the list of most popular public persons, and Milo Djukanovic the 3rd. However the opposition has some serious changes. Nebojsa Medojevic enrolled the presidential election with the clear decision to win, therefore his loss and governmental propaganda made him fall from 6th to 7th place. Andrija Mandic had a small increase, from 9th to 8th place. But the greatest shock is Srdjan Milic. His actions are obviously working, as he climbed from 8th to 5th place.

There is a slight decrease in EU support. It's now 70.8% YES and 12.1% NO, and interesting thing is that it was never as low as this. The standard and continual decline for NATO membership goes on. Now 46.7% are AGAINST and only 26.3% FOR. Regarding the cooperation with the ICTY, no change as always, 46.1% are FOR and 31.2% AGAINST. On the question who is Montenegro's foreign support ally, USA, EU, Russia or Serbia, the division continues and there is no no clear answer (back in the old days it was always Serbia).

This is by parties, 69.1% determined voters (were 72.2%):
 * DPS CG - 47.4% (+2.9%)
 * SNS - 14.4% (+3.2%)
 * SNP CG - 11.1% (+1.4%)
 * PzP - 10.8% (-7.3%)
 * SDP CG - 4.2% (+1.2%)
 * Serb Radicals - 2.4% (+0.4%)
 * LP CG - 1.7% (-0.3%)

All the changes are not accidents, but constant trends. What does a quick look at the poll tell you? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That the opposition needs to unite? And that the Serbian opposition is obviously the more important part, with the decline of the liberals... :( — Nightstallion 12:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that CEDEM's polling is mostly correct, but it is always pro-Milo. Sometimes it was once from time to time used to mold public opinion, rather than present it (not referring to this poll thought, except that it traditionally presents a little bigger popularity for DPS than it really is and a little smaller for all the others). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Miladin Kovacevic incident
An Interpol arrest warrant issued yesterday. The USA also threatened to withdraw any assistance, investment or anything else and inclined worsening of relations, with an official protest from the US ambassador handed over. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * nods — Nightstallion 13:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The investigation on organ trafficking officially began. The ICTY chief investigator Patrick Lopez Perres has arrived to Belgrade, soon he shall go to Kosovo and then finally to Albania. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Will be very interesting... — Nightstallion 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He has made contact with most of the witnesses, which confirmed their readiness to again tell their story.
 * It has been uncovered that the ICTY has stopped the investigations because he has no jurisdiction for Albania, and the hands for Kosovo itself were very tied. It has also been discovered that the infamous UNMIK Head of the Office for Court Medicine and Missing Persons, Hose Pablo Baraibar, obstructed any further UNMIK's investigation, according to which even dig sites of corpses were allegedly found. Baraibur worked on many killing zones, in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia too, and he is well known for stealing the remains of victims of atrocities and sell their bones to Universities, amongst other troublesome actions. Today he is hiding from the public somewhere in Argentina. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * sighs — Nightstallion 10:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot  23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for consensus
A question has arisen concerning the name of the article "Anthem of Europe". A discussion has opened up in Talk:Anthem of Europe. Your input is requested there. This is a neutrally worded notification sent to a small number of editors informed by a previous discussion of a similar nature about the article "Flag of Europe" and is intended to improve rather than to influence the discussion. This notification falls under the "friendly notice" clause of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Austria's snap election
I read from Corriere della Sera that Gusenbauer resigned and that there will be a fresh election. Corriere wrote also that the government fell basically over Europe because the Social Democrats have become Eurosceptic, that Faymann is more Eurosceptic than Gusenbauer and that, if he wins, he is likely to form a government with FPO. Is all that correct? Can you tell me the last opinion polls? As an Europeanist, what do you expect and hope from the election? --Checco (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, ÖVP and SPÖ were not willing to work with each other at all since the last election; the SPÖ has shifted a bit to the eurosceptic side in order to stop their voters from going to the FPÖ, but ultimately they're still pro-European. Faymann is not more eurosceptic -- Faymann has got no political ideologies at all.
 * I'm afraid an FPÖ-SPÖ government (yes, in that order) might be possible. Current polls do not look good at all to me (check the German Wikipedia article). — Nightstallion 08:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the opinion polls. ÖVP and SPÖ are very close, FPÖ is growing and BZÖ may enter Parliament. I don't think it is possible a FPÖ-SPÖ government (in that order), but definitely both FPÖ and BZÖ could join one of the two big parties in a governing coalition. And what about the Greens? Why are Social Democrats so keen on a government with FPÖ? What are the more likely government coalitions? --Checco (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FPÖ-SPÖ was perhaps a bit apocalyptic. My actual predictions would be close race between ÖVP and SPÖ, which the SPÖ will likely win, both not much above 30%; FPÖ around 16%; Greens around 12%; Dinkhauser enters parliament, BZÖ only through the base mandate from Carinthia. — Nightstallion 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you will have six parties represented in Parliamente: more than ever. Can you explain me how the base mandate works? And what about Dinkhauser: what will be his party's score? What are the more likely government coalitions? --Checco (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Many things are happening in Italy while I am away from Wikipedia. Today Ottaviano Del Turco and some regional ministers of the Abruzzo region were arrested. There could be a snap election in October. For the news, see here. --Checco (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At most six, yeah. The base mandate just means that parties which don't get 4% nationally can still enter parliament if they get a lot of votes in one of the constituencies, in BZÖ's case, in Carinthia. Dinkhauser hasn't really got too much of a program AFAIK; he's just a reformist centrist who'll successfully try to get protest votes, plus cash in on his and HP Martin's popularity in Tyrol and Vorarlberg. Government coalitions... Either just another grand coalition, or a three-party government (most certainly to include Dinkhauser, possibly the Greens, but I doubt whether they'll have enough MPs), or a minority government.
 * sighs Not good. I found out when the South Tyrolean election is, it's on 26 October. — Nightstallion 13:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the threshold for base mandate? --Checco (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on in which constituency you're trying to gain it, but mostly around 20% to 30%. I'm afraid Haider will likely manage to gain that many votes in some or all of Carinthia's constituencies; analysts disagree on whether Dinkhauser will manage to get 4% or whether he'll have to try for base mandates in Tyrol and Vorarlberg. — Nightstallion 14:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So the party which gets base mandate will get seats only in the State where it surpasses the threshold. What do you dislike more: Haider or FPÖ? --Checco (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No -- if a party doesn't manage to get four percent, it can nonetheless enter parliament if it manages to gain a base mandate. Mandates are distributed at three levels in Austria -- at the constituency level, at the state level and at the federal level; you need to meet the threshold to qualify for gaining mandates at the higher levels, but if you gain a base mandate at constituency level, you don't need the threshold.
 * I dislike both equally, I'd say. — Nightstallion 21:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if a party surpasses any of the three levels it will take parte to the national distibution of seats and not simply where it got the base mandate, correct? --Checco (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite -- either you get a base mandate, or you get 4% -- in either case you participate in the distribution at levels 2 (state) and 3 (federal), but on level 1 (regional constituency) you only participate if you got 4% nationally or got a base mandate in that constituency. Not that it matters too much, you'll get your mandates sooner or latter, as no votes are lost if you get no mandates at level 1. — Nightstallion 12:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thus, the result is almost perfect proportional representation. Thanks for your explanation. --Checco (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's highly proportional. Glad to explain it! If you see anything I'm missing in the article on the election, be sure to tell me. :) — Nightstallion 13:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt. It is a very good article as of today. --Checco (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) Doing what I can. ;) — Nightstallion 13:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Peace
The "Great Reconciliation Treaty" between DS and SPS prepared for signing. It was made personally by Boris Tadic, Ivica Dacic and their closest men in secrecy, with many of the democrat leadership in shadow of its content, and it shall be a secret contract. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any idea what might be in it? — Nightstallion 08:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but something wreathes with stench. Nenad Canak (LSV) is horribly worried and almost expresses remorse for everything.
 * Marko Milosevic (Slobodan's son), who beat up several resistance members in their home town back years ago, including intimidated one with a chainsaw in the middle of the street, has just been acquitted of all charges by the local court. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. Strange. — Nightstallion 17:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In other news, the patriotic coalition in Belgrade has been broken due to PUPS complaints, before the constitutive assembly (tomorrow). Ivica Dacic announced new local civic elections for the Capital City. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When? — Nightstallion 20:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For when? Well, remains to be seen. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, what do you think about no European integrations of Serbia before the arrest of Radovan Karadzic? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's right in principle, but I'm doubtful as to whether we'll really get Karadzic, Mladic and Hadzic in time... On the other hand, it worked with Croatia, didn't it? — Nightstallion 20:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Ante Gotovina was arrested in Spain, and his only connection to anything Croatian were several circles within the Roman Catholic Church.
 * Ante Gotovina was a General of Croatia. Radovan Karadzic was nothing of Serbia. AFAIK, he's not even a Serbian citizen. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, is it really just to present no such problems to Montenegro, or Bosnia and Herzegovina. I know that since late 2006 the Republic of Serbia is the State of the Serbs, but that still does not mean that it is legally obliged for every single ethnic Serb in the world, no matter in which corner he lives. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it might have worked had they decided to pose the criterion to all states at the same time, but it's too late for that now... — Nightstallion 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the new Minister for Justice, cooperation with the ICTY will be brought to an end in this term. She also claims that there is a consensus on this issue in the new government.

As for Kosovo, the UNHCR and others warned that the status of refugees has reached a red point. Ever since the declaration of independence, a total of three individuals have returned. The government of Hashim Thaci has since appointment made no investment or any move on the return of refugees at all, despite this being a prerequisite for many financial assistance as well as a demand from the international community. To add further to the controversy, the Government of Kosovo by majority votes rejected by majority vote EU's donation to fund the return of refugees, on the argument "not needed". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * sighs "Bring to an end" = "stop" or = "fulfill all obligations"? — Nightstallion 14:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Some disturbing things
1. A poll by Croatian media showed that 60% Croats condemn the Ustashas, but around 40% support them.

2. No one in the Republic of Srbska pays for the national television (tax), because no one watches it - only domestic and Serbia's TV stations are regularly watched. This is another great income cut, as most of the Federation pays. Today even the Prime Minister formally declared that he has no intention to pay it, and supported the people in their ever-going boycott. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * sighs — Nightstallion 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The first thing the new parliamentary majority shall do: adopt a new resolution on Kosovo (common DS-SPS draft) that shall confirm the continuation in the policy towards Kosovo of the previous government. DS, G17+, SPS-PUPS-JS and all the national minorities except the Albanian shall support it, the Albanian refuses the policy, as he previously conditioned his support for the formation of a government with recognition of Kosovo. DSS-NS won't support it either, and submitted an alternate draft, claiming it shall use all given means to obstruct the parliament if it's not adopted. The current authorities are more inclined towards acknowledging the EULEX, and the populist version depicts condemning EU's illegal mission to Kosovo. The SRS also submitted yet another draft, condemning EU's continuation of aggression upon the Republic of Serbia. This resolution will oblige the new Government of the Republic of Serbia, and President Mirko Cvetkovic already made a formal statement that the Serbian government will not recognize independence of Kosovo, nor make any approach towards that move in his term. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * nods Well, nobody expected Serbia to accept it this quickly, so that's okay. — Nightstallion 08:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But this will take for weeks, you can't believe them, they are like children, god knows when will they go to Point 2 (SAA)! Maybe after next elections? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the SAA is now the first point on the agenda? — Nightstallion 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Kosovo
 * 2. SAA
 * 3. Russian Treaty --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Instead of the new resolution on Kosovo, the first item on parliament’s agenda was set to be the SAA."
 * Actually, the news is semi-wrong/semi-correct. There is a whole mess over there, and the inexperienced Speaker openly admitted that she was wrong and broke the Statute. I personally dropped following it, as it's getting a bit tiresome. In some other parliaments it was even more scandalous, for example in Belgrade apparently "some man with a beard" broke the microphone, then the Radicals voted in a mistake to support a DS proposal that has majority...madness...last year there was a CNN special show dedicated to the spoiled children of the young Serbian democracy, I can't wait to see what'll be next. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops... — Nightstallion 20:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Kadima
Sorry, didn't realise you had asked (I always forget to check for replies on the same page as I write!). Anyway, at the moment there is the possibility that it might not happen, because apparently the turnout in the party vote on whether to amend its constitution to allow the primary is very low - see here... пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  16:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * sighs Not good. Olmert is really pushing the boundaries here... — Nightstallion 19:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Voila. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  15:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ) Thanks! — Nightstallion 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian Politics Signpost
Several national conventions in Italy this weekend:
 * Party of Italian Communists: Oliviero Diliberto, who proposed a new united party with PRC and other splinter groups, re-elected secretary, the group around Katia Belillo could leave the party if Nichi Vendola is elected secretary of PRC next Sunday.
 * Federation of the Greens: Grazia Francescato is the new leader, she was supported by the party establishment and defeated two modernizers (paradoxically modernizers are what remains of the old guard of the party); she will anyway try to transform the party into a European green party, maybe distancing from the far left position it held the during the last years.
 * The Right: Francesco Storace resigned as leader; in the next congress the party will choose what to do about alliances.
 * Liga Veneta: Gian Paolo Gobbo re-elected secretary, Flavio Tosi president; the latter is also a shoo-in for President of Veneto Region in 2010 (sigh).

Next weekend: V national congress of the Communist Refoundation Party, no idea about who will win (I prefer Paolo Ferrero, also because I would like to see a united communist party in Italy instead of five/six as they are now).

Trento news: The October provincial election will be fought by Lorenzo Dellai (UpT, PD, a portion of PATT, others, maybe UDC) and Sergio Divina (LNT, PdL, a portion of PATT, maybe UDC); Dellai is very popular and definitely the clear favourite.

Abruzzo news: Ottaviano Del Turco, who proclaimed himself innocent, resigned from the post of President and thus there will be a regional election in October/November. --Checco (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for all the info! — Nightstallion 08:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

VICTORY OF STATUSQUOISTS IN NEPAL
The first president of Nepal was elected yesterday. Unfortunately, he belongs to right camp of satusquoists. New coalition had formed during presidential elections from NC, UML-CPN and MPRF. Even monarchists, who boycotted first round of presidential elections, joined new right coalition. Maoists took once right decision not to join new government. CrazyRepublican (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at least it's a republic now. — Nightstallion 08:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It’s Republic with monarchists ahead, as well as Third Republic in France at the beginning, with the presidents-monarchists Thiers and Mac-Mahon. And main force, who brought main sacrifice for to become Nepal a Republic and, who received on the elections to CA more votes, than any another party, became out of power.CrazyRepublican (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * nods — Nightstallion 10:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Beatles Newsletter July 2008

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

...... Densock  .. Talk (Dendodge on a public network) 10:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam?
Is the article linked by KyZan (and written by himself) in the article about conservative liberalism spam or not? --Checco (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, of course. — Nightstallion 09:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ehm, sorry... --Checco (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack? If yes, what can I do about it? --Checco (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, that's a personal attack and I'd go to WP:ANI -- it seems he's beyond discussing this rationally... — Nightstallion 17:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you do in my place? Do you think that I'd better to ignore the attack and go on on my way? --Checco (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, have you successfully removed his spam? If yes, and if ignoring him keeps him quiet, that's also a solution. — Nightstallion 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I will do, even if I see from his watchlist that he has now problems with other issue. In any cas, it is better to ignore his attacks. Obviously if he continues to offend instead of quietly discussing, I will think about taking him to WP:ANI. --Checco (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * nods — Nightstallion 17:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote LIF
Can I ask you why did you endorse LIF? I'm very sympathetic of that party, but I was convinced that you would vote for the Greens. Why that choice? Do you think that LIF will surpass the thresholds? Aren't you concerned about spolining your vote? --Checco (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's very very strong on social liberalism, which is one of my most important political beliefs. Granted, the difference between LIF and Greens isn't that large in many points, but I'd just like to have the choice between two parties in the future... Besides, the fact that Schmidt and Haselsteiner will stand in the election is reason enough for me to definitely vote for the LIF. If it had been another leading candidate, I wouldn't have been sure, but as Schmidt is standing, I'll certainly try to help them get back into parliament again.
 * Regarding wasting my vote: If they don't make it into parliament now, it might have been the last time I'd have the chance to vote for the LIF, so I'll take my chances now... The chances of meeting the threshold are quite good now, as many people are disillusioned with the established parties and Schmidt and Haselsteiner are quite well-known. — Nightstallion 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite not being socially liberal, I totally agree with you: as far as I know (I don't live in Austria and I don't like to endorse parties of countries where I don't live) it is a GREAT choice! I would also like to see LIF in the next Parliament and in Austrian politica scene for a long time from now. It is amazing that a person like Heide Schmidt was a member of FPÖ or, better, it is a shame how such a respectable party has become the party you describe to me everytime. I'm very sorry about that: Austria could hava a big liberal party now, with both conservative and more social wings! Your hopes for the next general election are the same as mine.
 * PS: What about Alexander Zach? --Checco (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FPÖ never was a respectable party -- it just had a tiny liberal wing along with the much larger nationalist one. There's nothing liberal about today's FPÖ and BZÖ, either... Well, let's hope the LIF makes it into parliament...
 * Zach is still leader of the LIF, Schmidt will just be the leading candidate. — Nightstallion 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How was possible for a person like Schmidt to be member of such a nationalist party? --Checco (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it *did* have a liberal wing which was in power until Haider took over in 1986... — Nightstallion 17:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but, as "FPÖ never was a respectable party", how could these two wings cohesist in the same party? --Checco (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The German nationalism in Austria was always defined by pan-Germanism, by anti-clericalism and by a certain degree of liberalism. Schmidt finally decided to break with Haider when he started his anti-immigrants-people's initiative in 1993. — Nightstallion 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the economic policy of LIF? --Checco (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically liberal but with a strong view towards "helping people to help themselves", i.e. supporting people with very little income with subsidies but taxing rich people quite a lot... Rather a strange kind of economic liberalism, but I like it. ;) — Nightstallion 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I read in the election's article that "the BZÖ stood under a different name in Carinthia than in the rest of Austria in 2006". What was the name in Carinthia? --Checco (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Die Freiheitlichen in Kärnten – Liste Haider – BZÖ ("The Freedom-Minded in Carinthia – Haider's List – BZÖ"), to capitalise on his personal support in Carinthia and the confusion between FPÖ and BZÖ. The BZÖ campaigns in Carinthia as Die Freiheitlichen – BZÖ, so they're intentionally confusing voters. — Nightstallion 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information! --Checco (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisbon update
'stallion, hi! Lisbon update.
 * Will there be a second referendum?: No. Irish opinion is hardening against it
 * How will the European Parliament cope?: It won't. It'll remain as is, a talking shop shuttling between Brussels and Strasbourg...pointlessly.
 * How will the European Council cope?: It won't. It'll remain with six-month presidencies that achieve nothing and are ignored on the world stage.
 * How will the European Commission cope?: A reduction to <27 is mandated in Nice, but the amount requires unanimity...which won't happen. What they will do is assign the secretary-general to one country (guess which one?) and carry on on a 26+1 basis under Nice.
 * Implications: Europe will slide towards irrelevance and be ill-placed to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
 * Who wins?: Nobody: not even the Irish.
 * Relevant links:

Incidentally, what do you think of this? Am I the only one looking at it and thinking "dress rehearsal for next year"?

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you're wrong... sighs — Nightstallion 08:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He is, it is not quite so bad and is mainly the fault of the leaderhship rather than the Irish;
 * Will there be a second referendum?: Doubtful but not impossible. Council will see it as the only solution (after some changes for the Irish) so they'll get one held regardless.
 * How will the European Parliament cope?: Not fantastically, but it will survive. It does still have powers in most areas and as for the others, well it'll just have to wait. It does theoretically have the power to force their own Commission President simply by refusing to approve unless it is their candidate. However MEPs are incredibly spineless when it comes to actually fighting for real democracy.
 * How will the European Council cope?: A full time president wouldn't do much, it would give more continuity but remove some authority as without the backing of a state it is just a person who arranges the tables. In fact it would remove state involvement to an extent and hence disengage some of the more apathetic states from the whole process. And if the new president isn't a walk over then it is a challenge to the Commission's authority which would have gained a democratic mandate (of sorts). It also wouldn't have addressed the foreign policy overlap.
 * How will the European Commission cope?: It is way to big and it is damaging the institution, especially with the absence of a democratic mandate. However, as with above, is Lisbon is dumped they will simply try to bring things in by the back door - they could cut down the Commission simply by consolidating the top jobs in two third of members and give the rest odd jobs (like Multilingualism...).
 * Implications: We won't move forward but we have survived on Nice for this long, changes can be made without a treaty. The real problem here is the leadership who do not understand public opinion nor vision.
 * Who wins?: Nobody, except the sceptics who have been handed a fantastic amount of propaganda for their campaign by the European Council.
 * Relevant links: Like I can be arsed to go find them, go talk to some MEPs (not for their story, but to see what I mean about spineless backstabbers)... - J Logan t: 10:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * nods — Nightstallion 10:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * J, I wish I shared your optimism, but I genuinely don't see it. You are correct to cast blame at a ineffectual leadership (what was Wallstrom doing this Spring? Oh, and Sarkozy's backed Barrosso for a second term: why he should do so escapes me...) but assigning blame doesn't cure the problem. Some of your substantive points rest on inaccurate assumptions: the assumption that the Council can enforce a second referendum is invalid (The Council cannot make Ireland do anything, it can only persuade, and Cowen cannot be persuaded into political suicide, especially when "standing tough to Brussels" will be so politically popular). Similarly, the assumption that a full-time Council President would be only window dressing: the disadvantages of the six-month presidencies has been observed by others and the importance of using a named individual ("President X") rather than an arbitrary concept ("The Presidency of X") underestimated IMHO. Even the Eurosceptic triumph is a chimera: my current landlord is a fervent Eurosceptic (you don't know what I have to go thru to get access to this PC, you really dont...sorry, whining) and when I upgraded Independence/Democracy (have a look at it, see what you think) I was strangely heartbroken to have to tell him that basically, they just fuck around when they get to the EP and pursue a right-wing agenda instead of a Eurosceptic one: I assume Libertas will do the same when it puts up candidates for election (it will) and gets at least one MEP elected (it will). So even Eurosceptic voters will be betrayed...ironically, by the very people they send to Brussels/Strasbourg to represent them.


 * On a wider point, we have reached the limit of what treaties can achieve - a mechanism designed to liase between kings willing to pursue realpolitik to achieve long-term goals cannot survive the 21st century, where a Western European electorate will demand a line-item veto and reject everything they dislike, even slightly. It's not a specifically Irish problem: if it wasn't them, it'd be the Danes/Dutch/Austrians/Czechs/British/Poles...the vista of national leaders signing a treaty in '07 and then frantically backtracking in '08 ("We didn't mean it really: a bad electorate stole my homework and ran away - it's not my fault, blame them") makes you wonder what they think their job description is. Lacking any other mechanism, member states will use the enhanced cooperation method more and more: which will enable some sort of progress but will turn the EU into an administrative nightmare, with multiple overlapping categories, a Europe a la carte. This may be inevitable since a one-size-fits-all Europe isn't working, but it is a pity.


 * I will now return to my work of getting the political groups sorted out, although a digression presents itself ('stallion, see below). Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm also quite pessimistic about Europe currently, but it's been through worse crises, I suppose it'll somehow manage this one... Though I really can't imagine how, at the moment... — Nightstallion 14:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just replying on a few points. I didn't mean "force", its the diplomatic pressure Ireland would face - far more powerful, diplomacy is getting someone to do what you want without even asking, forcing doesn't come into it. As for the President, you argument would apply if the replacement actually worked, but the Treaty has made a mess of the whole concept and it will just turn into impotent infighting. And on Eurosceptics, I did mean the leaderships, not the people of course. The people never win in this game, no matter which side they are on. Finally, the treaties are under strain but not at their limit. They do not prevent a combined FM post, an EAS, transparency, name changes (in practice) and so on, while things like codecision, QMV etc. can be via gentlemen's agreements.
 * You get the idea I hope. But basically the Council is acting like a train, it is on tracks and it can't think outside the box. They should never have pushed the constitution; when your date doesn't want to go out again, you try to understand why and change or correct any misconceptions they might have - out leadership instead asked the electorate out for a drink saying they just wanted to talk rather than it being romantic while actually intending to get the electorate drunk and have their hand down their pants by midnight. If they succeed then they've got lucky, but it is hardly the foundation of a long term relationship. I have been thinking up ways on how they could solve the whole damn situation but I know they will never do it so I won't bore you with the details.
 * Okay, I'll stop my interruption now. Here's to a second date.- J Logan t: 19:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of far-right nationalists acting on a pan-european basis
I don't know if this is a legitimate method for getting something done, so please excuse me if I am breaking WP:CANVASS or something. But a categorization problem has arisen concerning far-right nationalism acting on a pan-European basis. The far-right Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty rose and fell, the far-right Euronat still exists, and the far-right "European Patriotic Party" is predicted to emerge in 2009 after the Euroelections ,. Entries concerning this phenomena have gone into the article Pan-European nationalism or category Category:Pan-European nationalism. This is unsatisfactory, since it leads to confusion (on a cursory reading, should the International Paneuropean Union - an organization banned by the Nazis - be in the same category as the unambiguously neo-nazi National Party of Europe?) To cure this problem, I propose that the article "Pan-European nationalism" be renamed to "Euronationalism" and the category Category:Pan-European nationalism be renamed to "Category:Euronationalism", matching the pattern of other schools of thought such as Euroscepticism, Eurocommunism, Eurofederalism, etc.

Problem is, the article "Euronationalism" was nominated for deletion and deleted on June 2006 on grounds of neologism (?!?!). Since this is causing a genuine categorization problem, could you tell me how I go about reversing this deletion?

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. I think simply moving the article to the new name, provided you've got some sources, should not prove to be a problem, but I could be wrong. — Nightstallion 14:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Already tried that: since there's a page (albeit a redirect) with a page history and talk page already at Euronationalism, the software won't let me do it. I could do a CfR and AfR, but I'd run into the fact that Euronationalism was CfD'd back in 2006. Hence the request for advice on how I get a AfD reversed (Is it as simple as me pointing to Euronat/ITS and saying "Hello?!" in a Janice-from-Friends sort of way?). Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I could move it for you, that'd be no problem. You just need to be prepared to argue your case if someone decides the article should be deleted for neologism again. — Nightstallion 14:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, give me about a week to compile sources and arguments (I want to get back to the Eurogroups...it's been too long) and I'll get back to you next weekend, if that's OK. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's fine! — Nightstallion 18:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)