User talk:Domitius/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Welcome!

Hello, Domitius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  NikoSilver 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shuppiluliuma

Should you wish to comment, User:Rarelibra has opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shuppiluliuma. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] De facto & de jure

Hey Domitius. I don't recall saying something could be de facto without being de jure. My point is that no one disputes that in reality (de facto), the TRNC is independent of Cyprus. However, it is still part of Cyprus officially (de jure, by law). As for my talk page, it's a long story. ;-) Khoikhoi 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, what's going on with the Greek names at Kars and Kars Province? Shouldn't they be using the kappa rather than the K? Same goes with the omicron. Khoikhoi 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it means "allegations". I figured since that was the most common name in Turkish to describe the events, we should use that rather than a translation that most Turks don't use. However, I forgot about the Turkish-speaking Pontic Greek refugees, so perhaps we could use both. Try asking Behemoth about the names of the Pontic Greeks. He would definitely know. Khoikhoi 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Hi Domitius, happy to meet you, and welcome to wikipedia :-) Regarding the question you made me, my opinion is it would be better to keep them separate. You see, Chameria Issue should stand on it's own because it regards a specific aspect of Greek-Albanian relations, while Chameria touchs a historical region that is now mainly used in a natonalistic context. But I do agree that info tends to overlap quite a lot in the three articles. But could you elaborate me better your view? Ciao,--Aldux 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: 3RR

Acknowledged. Please note that there is NO consensus for the current maps -- and I dare any editor to show me where this is -- and that the original PNG maps were in place for MONTHS before any of relatively recent (bad) map changes. Read the Country WikiProject talk page for more information. Corticopia 23:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For you to be outnumbered on the pages, clearly the regular editors of those particular articles have reached a consensus. This is how the issue should be dealt with until a uniform standard can be agreed upon.--Domitius 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That is precisely the point: a uniform standard WAS previously agreed upon (tne PNG maps), which has gotten lost in updating to morassthese 'innovative /consensual' new SVG maps and through reams of discussion. Corticopia 23:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
For there to be edit warring, there's hardly an agreement. The issue's in limbo now, so the regular editors of each article should decide provisionally on a case-by-case basis until those polls produce a final result.--Domitius 23:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

Hello Diyako. I was thinking that creating a Wikipedia:Portal for Kurdistan (at Portal:Kurdistan) might be a good idea, what do you think?--Domitius 01:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea to have a Wikipedia:Portal for Kurdistan, I personally don’t know how to start or really organize a Wikipedia:Portal. If you know how to start a Wikipedia:Portal and willing to do so, then I am more than willing to help you. --D.Kurdistani 04:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Περί Μακεδονίας

Αυτά που γράφουν οι παρακάτω χρήστες επιτρέπονται δηλαδή, και η δική μας άποψη οχί...; (user:Macedonian, user:Makedonia, user:Realek, user:Vlatkoto)...... Τι να πω;--makedonas 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

  • Ευχαριστώ: thank you for adding Bulgarian :-) Evv 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
lol "De nada" are the usual words ;-) Evv 18:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, i dont think anyone here is interested in your private point of views, use sources for your claims please and stop distrupting articles..(I mean greek war of independence)--88.241.104.210 14:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geia sou

Kai (an kai ligaki kathisterimena...) kalosorises Gianni. An epitrepete kai me olo to tharos, tha ithela na se rotiso: Apo pou eise apo Ellada?

Signomi gia to akatallilo tis oras kai kalinichta sou nichta. --Asteraki 00:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirie Protevousiane elifthi. Koitaxte kai to diko sas xana...  ;-) --Asteraki 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Kali sou nichta kai perimeno apantisi sou avrio. --Asteraki 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sparta

Hello, Why did you revert to the version of Sparta that says (wikilinks) it was a superpower. The Wiki article says "A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and has the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale;". Do you believe that to be true for Sparta? NN 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, I saw it was a hyper-referenced passage and assumed it had been accidentally deleted by the anon vandals and their reverters.--Domitius 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I had reverted a couple of vandalisms, maybe that was the source of the confusion. Also there is some discussion about the hyper-referenced passage in the discussion page, it has been added over the past week. I believe that passage should go to the article "History of Sparta". If you believe that is the right thing for the article, I would appreciate if you reverted it back to the last version by me. Regards, NN 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'll have a look at the talkpage later and go over it with you.--Domitius 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, NN 21:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the references to superpower while keeping the "hyper-referenced" passage. I find this passage to be generally okay, though still think a better place for it would be "History of Sparta". NN 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed and referenced in Talk:Sparta. Nayan cannot go past the WP:NOR policy and accept mainstream western scholarship. Miskin 10:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Referenced Material

I had NOT removed any referenced material. If you look at my version you will find that I had moved the material to a section below. And why did you remove the following referenced material that I had inserted into Sparta article? Sparta along with Athens, Thebes and Persia were the main regional powers fighting for supremacy against each other[1]. These three were sometimes Sparta's adversaries and sometimes her allies, and Sparta and her allies both won and lost battles against these three. For example, during the Corinthian War Athens and Persia initially started out as allies against Sparta. Losses forced Sparta to sue for peace with the Persians and the result was the King’s Peace which was on Persian terms. Following this peace Sparta interfered in other Greek states bringing about its defeat by Thebes at Leuctra in 371 B.C.[2][1] NN 06:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said you deleted anything, I disagree with you insisting on suppressing a significant factor in Sparta's history without citing sources. I have restored the sourced text you added, I didn't notice it. Happy now?--Domitius 08:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No, not happy yet. I believe the claim of Sparta "overpowering both the Athenian and Persian Empires" and being a World Power/Superpower needs to be balanced by mention of its defeats by both those empires. In proximity. Hence the repositioning. You may regard something as "significant factor", I may regard something else as significant. I am going to do my best to make sure Wiki articles do not mislead the reader, which is what the current version of the article does. NN 08:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What you are doing is POV pushing by stealth because you can't find sources contradicing the highly respectable sources cited. If you want to say that it did not have that status, cite sources. You say "mislead the reader", mislead him into what? Into what Cambridge Uni Press says???--Domitius 08:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not the one pushing any POV, it is those who insist on calling Sparta a World Power/Superpower are doing that. The link to superpower says ""A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and has the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale;" Do you believe that applies to Sparta??? Do you not think it misleads the reader to be told that Sparta was able to "project power on a worldwide scale"??? NN 09:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
And in any case you have not said why I am not allowed to introduce more material to give context to material already in the article, or why I am not allowed to move material to a more suitable place within the article. What Wiki policy do you believe I would be violating? NN 09:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a view found in the most reliable of sources, it's not my POV. You're crusade to remove it is POV pushing until you cite some counter sources and attempts to say "Sparta was not a superpower because it had difficulties in wars in the past" [like the USA did in Vietnam???] violates WP:NOR. If you want to challenge Sparta's status then, cite sources, it really is that simple.--Domitius 10:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point completely. I am not removing it. The issue now is 1) Positioning 2) Other material that I wish to introduce. And you consistently refuse to answer whether Sparta was able to "project power on a worldwide scale"? which is what the link you insist on maintaining says. NN 14:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That question belongs on the article's talkpage - I cannot speak for other editors, so even if we agree on something (which shouldn't be too hard considering I 'consistently refuse to answer whether Sparta was able to "project power on a worldwide scale"'), it doesn't necessarily form a consensus.--Domitius 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It sounds to me that you are saying that the positioning of the material should be by consensus. I agree with that. The question is how do we arrive at it? NN 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skopje, Republic of Macedonia

Can you give us reference (in the Macedonian low) that albanian language is official in Macedonia.--Brest 10:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The constitution maybe? That part about any language spoken by over 20% of the population being official. Of course letting me do the interpretation would be original research, wouldn't it? That's why I prefer to rely on Britannica, which also affirms the linguistic situation in your multilinguistic, multiethnic and multiconfessional state. Pozdrav.--Domitius 10:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If your read the constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, article 7 say "In the Republic of Macedonia official language is macedonian language and cyrilic alphabet. In the units of local comunities where leave majority of other natinalities, in official use, beside of macedonian language and cyrilic aplhabet, are language and alphabet of nationalities according to the low". But the low still is not adopted. Which means that official language is only Macedonian language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brest (talk • contribs) 10:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I've read the relevant parts, this issue was subject to heavy discussion in the past. You deliberately omit incriminating passages in your quote. Nevertheless, it's a violation of WP:OR for us to carry out statutory interpretation by ourselves. See here and I rest my case.--Domitius

[edit] Gagauzia

Would you care to explain this immediate edit of yours? Here's the original article of the law: Art. 3. - (1) Limbile oficiale ale Găgăuziei sînt limbile moldovenească, găgăuză şi rusă. Law on the special legal status of Gagauzia. --Illythr 22:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Да, согласно Британнике, официальный язык Республики Молдова — румынский язык.--Domitius 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the Constitution of Moldova has more weight in this situation. At least with the official names. Especially since the relation between Mo and Ro is explained in the first sentence of the Moldovan Language article. --Illythr 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's so important for you, then feel free to revert. All I was doing was trying to work out a compromise between you and Luka.--Domitius 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
We, too, are trying to find a solution. The point is that some laws of Moldova (declaration of independence, law of the sate language) actually mention about Romanian. It is not an issue to fight on, but just to talk normally and agree on something. Britanica is a solid argument. By itself, agaist the Constitution - no, but in the presence of so many factors, Moldovan (Romanian) option sounds much more appealing to me.:Dc76 03:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philhellenism#Erotisi

Φilhellenism 23:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ordu

There's nothing wrong with using Armenian sources except when they are the only sources that are used to support a disputed and an inflammatory Armenian claim.

Then it becomes POV and biased - even if it is true. And it may very well be true but nobody has provided unbiased or NPOV sources in 5 months. Just one passage from an Armenian hardly qualifies as a source and reverting over and over again isn't going to make it a fact either.

If you have a logical explanation why this guy is not biased or not POV, let me hear it.

Also, when talking about 90 years ago, you can't put it in the Population section of Ordu today. How is that relevant? What next? Apes and homo-erectus who lived there 10,000 years ago? Let's be serious. --Oguz1 20:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English

Besides the other issues, do you understand the implications of quotation marks in the English language when someone writes 'superpower' rather than just superpower as in "the 'superpower' contest between Athens and Sparta is equivalent to the recent cold war between USA and the USSR"? NN 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's that period's equivalent.--Domitius 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You obviously do not understand why the authors use the quotation marks. They are used as disclaimers or even worse irony. They say "this is not a word we are taking responsibility for, we are quoting", or "someone has used this wrongly, but we will use it with quotations to make fun of them". It has nothing to do with this period or that period. NN 00:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Quotation marks serve that function when someone is being quoted. Who is the author quoting here???--Domitius 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long or short

I'll tell you in short (if you do not want the long story). ;)

The Bosniac ethnos dates back to the areas of Ottoman rule. One of two types of interpretation of the word "Bosniac" is a native Muslim of Bosnia and Herzegovina. You could call the first half of the 19th century (or more precisely, the Great Bosnian uprising of Hussein Captain) the "Age of Bosniac national awakening".

However, trying to track a distinct Bosniac people before Ottoman conquest would be a very hard thing to do; and most historians do not go that far into the past. There are still controversies concerning whether Bogomilism was present in Medieval Bosnia at all, and the theory is supplied only by some side revisionist historians who claim that Serbs & Croats are nations "artificially created from Christian Bosniacs", which really doesn't hold water. So on what everyone agrees, the distinctness of the first "Bosniac ethnos" as you call it appeared some time during Turkish rule (as Islam helped them differ from Christian Serbo-Croats).

As for the very first "Bosnian ethnos" (the one claimed by both the Croatian and Serbian historical corpus too), it appeared since the 13th century for the first time, but that's another story. --PaxEquilibrium 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for the interaption, but I saw the discussion and I have to say that I don't agree with this interpretation. I understand PaxEquilibrium - earlier HolyRomanEmperor because this is common interpretation in Serbia. I suggest you to read: Bosnia: A Short History by British author Noel Malcolm. Bosnian Church was unique church in Medievel Bosnia different from Orthodox and Catolic churches, before islam came in Bosnia. Its followers, were called heretics by Serbs and Croats (as well as Pope) and they were targeted by them because heretics were not welcome in Europe then. Even now, there is thousands and thousand of tomb stones called stećci which were unique for followers of Bosnian Church (one in my own backyard), which are sometimes called Bogumils by some historians. But we are small nation, so bigger are alwayes trying to impose their will as Serbs and Croats always did during history. The last genocide commited by Serbs is just an example of hatred which can be tracked to the Middle Ages. That is my opinion. Emir Arven 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be responding to this on Pax's talkpage.--Domitius 18:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know: I tried to present as a neutral as possible view - I evade going down into the Middle Ages because this is a nest of controversy in Bosnia's case. If I tried even a little bit to present you the conservative & traditionalist (and essentially, irredentist) views in Serbia, I would've simply wrote that Bosniacs were created in 1993 and that they're all "really Islamized Serbs", or the same with the Croatian view - "all really Moslem Croats" (both revisionist fallacies). But I didn't try to do it. I left the possibility for open theories in my post to you because nothing that back could be confirmed for sure. I already told you that there was a Bosnian ethnos dating to the very beginnings of the 13th century (some even say to the 12th), but due to the fact that three different domestic sides all claim this - I've tried to explain you this as much WP:NPOV as I tried. Please notify me if you disagree with anything I said or find it POV/false.
As for The last genocide commited by Serbs is just an example of hatred which can be tracked to the Middle Ages. I think this is just terrifying generalization. For neither were nations formed back then so that ethnic hatreds could exist in the first place, nor did Islam exist back then (the center of discrimination by Christian Europe back then and the center of today's hatred in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Frankly, I also think that that sentence draws with itself a huge amount of stereotype. Cheers, mate. --PaxEquilibrium 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Differ that from other nationalist conflicts: not one of the three nations deny that they are one people, one ([South] Slavic) ethnic group, and thus the conflict does not base itself on "who came first". The ultra-nationalist theories how Bosniacs all came with the Turks and how Serbs are all refugees from the east expelled by the Ottomans are simple incorrect. Truth is that over 98% of the population belongs to one people and it did in the Medieval times. That's the least thing which all can agree (so everyone came at the same time). The "weight" is only not in favor of one side - the Bosniacs, and so is the sentiment and discrimination against them the highest (as their identified through their faith - Islam - a new thingy in Bosnia).

Yeah, Balkans is full of such things. However, I will have to repeat, problem is not like in Kosovo (were Serbs and Albanians are proving "who came first", although the arguments in this one are unquestionably more in the first's favor), none of the 3 Bosnian peoples did not "just appear" over there. Just to reflect you some of the controversies: the most famous Bosnian Muslim writer Meša Selimović was a Serb. The most famous Croatian writer; Nobel Prize winner Ivo Andrić (he was from BH) thought of himself as a Serb. There are numerous instances of Bosnian Muslims being Serbs & Croats (this is partially because there was no firmly established Bosniac entity, so they tied to the already deep-founded entities like Serbia, or in other cases, Croatia). However today there seems to be a "national demarcation". The very last Moslem Serbs from Bosnia (like Emir Kusturica and Lepa Brena) convert to Orthodox Christianity. The Slavic Muslims far beyond BH adopt Bosniak national identity. At least no there will no longer be these ambiguous confusions, and that will hopefully put an end to all the nationalist propagandas that besiege our Balkanized peoples. ;)

Truly. I just wish Emir Arven had that opinion too. Cheers, mate. If you need anything else, don't be a stranger. --PaxEquilibrium 20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not about what you were trying to do or not. You cannot behave like history is a marketplace. I just said I didn't agree with Serbian interpretations because of hatred and terrible past, and I suggested Domitius a book by a British author. My opinion is that neutral relevant historians which are not from Balkan should be the source for disputed topics about Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. Emir Arven 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Just assume more good faith. --PaxEquilibrium 20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doner Kebab is not Armenian or Greek

You guys crack me up with your desperate claim to fame of everything Turkish. I don't understand how you can claim something is not Turkish, when the word itself is Turkish. It is so juvenile and it really shows you hate Turks. --Oguz1 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article about kurdish workers party

I saw that you have changed the edit of mine claiming that the Turksh and American governments accepts that PKK is a terrorist organization, and according to newpapers and Turkish law it is a true statement. May I learn the reason why you have erased it?--Semiramiscan 20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article about kurdish workers party

I had a look at the WP:WTA yet I also have read the artic about us being entitled to ignore the rules of wikipedia. Thus I personally consider mentioning the PKK is a terrorist organization. I have plenty of reasons for this statement; 1-) PKK militants have killed more than 200,000 people (including civils and military). Battling with the military can be considered as a terorrist action. 2-) The leader of the PKK is sentenced for life for forming a teroor organizaiton. 3-)The PKK is listed as a terrorist organisation internationally by a number of states and organisations, including the USA and the EU. 4-)The family of victims of these killing would be highly offended 5-)The aim of the pkk is creation of a new country on the lands of Turkey which is a Terrorist action. OF COURSE if it still is inappropiate to use the word "terrorist" I am expecting your proposals of replacements. I also would like to recieve wiews of other wikipedians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Semiramiscan (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC). I am sorry that I have forgotten to sign --Semiramiscan 20:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article about kurdish workers party

thank you --Semiramiscan 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Kosovo

You're asking the wrong man; the Kosovar Albanian side wants nothing but independence - which the Serbian side will never give. It's as simple as that. As for independence, well, Kosovo is partially independent for years by now already. :) It seems that independence is favored much at the west (strong support from USA and UK, with opposition arriving strongly only from Spain) and the currently United Nations chief negotiator for the status is heavily leaned towards the Albanian side, that's a strong possibility - however, EU (which is taking over the protectorate status from the UN over Kosovo) has decided that everything will be put into the hands of Europe's highest body - and it has become obvious that Russia will veto any independence. So factually, it's a deadlock. Kosovo will become something like North Cyprus (the only difference being in enjoying some level of support from the West) and will probably remain prone to further violence... I know, I sounds pessimistic, but ya wanted to hear the truth. --PaxEquilibrium 20:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Be it as it is, we'll find out tomorrow (the Big Kosovo Day). --PaxEquilibrium 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Serbia's emptied of its highest administration. The whole Government and representation from all parliamentary parties (including Premier and President) are right now in Brussels. Tomorrow will the very last day of negotiations and frankly, we'll know (roughly) the future of Kosovo after tomorrow. --PaxEquilibrium 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The Serbian political leadership is proposing a semi-federalized form of government (Kosovo with a completely independent political system from Serbia proper). --PaxEquilibrium 11:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
A huge difference in this case: Kosovo enjoys a huge level of self-government and is already factually independent from Belgrade. This makes the situation far harder. Abkhazia asked for international peace-keepers from the UN but they refused, because they said that they won't do the same mistake like with Kosovo (which will only separate the peoples). True, you can give some people a hand and they'll demand an arm - but you cannot make people give up that which they already have. --PaxEquilibrium 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article about kurdish workers party

I would be glad to know the result of the discussion about mentioning PKK as a terrorist organization --Semiramiscan 20:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Şebinkarahisar

that version you keep reverting to was inserted by anonymous, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%9Eebinkarahisar&diff=70728065&oldid=65942541) plus it's not sourced...and irrelevant. I'm curious why anyone would revert to a version like that. any ideas? same for ordu http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ordu&diff=77173579&oldid=76035251) Does it make you happy to revert things or do yo have a reaosn . --Oguz1 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ordu revert has been well explained by many people, has it not? As for the Sebinkarahisar revert (which is this), I see nothing improper. It is customary to include foreign names (which would explain the Turkish name at Crete).--Domitius 21:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep discussions on Sparta page and stay away from mine

Regarding this message you posted to my user page:

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Sparta. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --Domitius 00:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(a) I am already aware of the 3 revert rule.

(b) You must have already seen that written on my user page twice, so your edit on my page can be called retaliatory vandalism because I removed bogus information you and your sockpuppets are posting on the Sparta article as well as others.

Sparta is not a "superstate". Please look on a map and explain to me how a dot can be called a superstate. Your "source" might not be fluent in English... Also please read Dicussion page on SPARTA article regarding using fictional Hollywood Comic book action movies and trailers about Greeks as "factual". Mehrshad123 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Hi Domitius,

Even if Russia blocks Kosovo independence in the U.N., as Mr. Martti Ahtisaari pointed out nobody can prevent Kosovo independence. The United States supports Kosovo independence, and even if Russia vetoes it, as Ahtisaari pointed out, Kosovo can unilateraly declare independence and it will be recognized by the United States and other countries. In other words Domitus, Kosovo is gone - however, you are welcome to deny reality. Bosniak 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, unlikely. The precedent is too significant, no country in Europe with recognize it that's for certain. Not even Albania and especially not BiH (if Kosovo can go independent then why can't the Republika Srpska -- get what I mean?).--Domitius 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Republika Srpska is one thing; Kosovo is another. Bosnia-Herzegovina's government has control over Republika Srpska - and Serbian government lost control of Kosovo in 1999. Kosovo has been semi-independent since then, and will gain full sovereignity by the end of this year. Remember - Serbia has no control over Kosovo. Bosniak 05:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not quite correct - a part of Serbian sovereignty still lasts ever since 1999 and has slightly grown thus-far. At the same time Kosovo doesn't have complete sovereignty over its own territory. This is evidently showing us of what will happen: Serbs and other non Albanians (60k+) will perhaps flee north of the river of Ibar, and North Kosovo will eventually remain in Serbia, while the remainder will be twined in nowhere for the next 20 years until everything is EU & peace is established.
Do you really think that Bosnian Serbs will want to remain in BH after (if) Kosovo becomes independent? The strongest argument in Pristina's favor is that nearly two million Albanians living in Kosovo will never ever re-integrate in Serbia - what do you think will happen when more than one and a half million Serbs living in Bosnia and Herzegovina decide never to live in the same state together with Bosniacs & Croats (likely to happen)? --PaxEquilibrium 13:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
At the same time, Russian diplomats admit off the record that Moscow is unlikely to veto the proposal, which may trigger more tensions with the West. “There’s no point in Russia’s vetoing,” a high-placed Kommersant source in the UN said. “Serbia has already lost Kosovo and won’t have it back. Abstaining in the vote, Moscow can save its face.” http://www.kommersant.com/p748988/Serbia_Kosovo_Independence_UN/ Bosniak 07:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, likely not to happen - as posed by political experts from Belgrade. --PaxEquilibrium 13:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Replay to all . There is not Greater Albanian it is just one real Albania with his natural territories. The fact that serbian did genocide in Kosova and elsewere it is totally true and they will respond one day for all their crime with their collaboratives.From the other point you will never understand Greeks because they are crazy , I tell you why ...they know albanian, they accept they have albanian origine but they say they are greek and they support serbs,they know how old they are but do not accept this to the others. They stop me because I remind to them what they really are.Parakallo Domitius et al min gjinete koris Besa.Dodona

Just out of curiosity, how much money did you stake? --PaxEquilibrium 13:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You speak Albanian, Serbo-Croat... are a son of Athena or somethin'? --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Bosniak's reply to PaxEquilibrium

Bosnian Serbs never wanted to stay in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and they don't want to stay even today. The government of Bosnia-Herzegovina has control over all of its territory. You cannot say the same for the government of Serbia. Kosovo is under NATO supervision and Serbia has no political or military control over it. As russian diplomat put it: "Serbia has already lost Kosovo and won’t have it back. Abstaining in the vote, Moscow can save its face." source The bottom line is, there has been only up to 5% of Serbs in pre-war Kosovo. Do you really believe you deserve to have that teritory as part of Serbia? In pre-war teritory of todays Republika Srpska, Bosniaks constituted at least 40% of population. So you can't draw a paralel between the two. Bosniak 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Hi Domitius: Just wanted to let you know that in my eyes, your behavior is much more stalking than NN, and your comment on WP:ANI [2] are not helpful at all but rather shed a bad light on you, same for other talk pages ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and many more). Overall, in the whole dispute you look to me like the least WP:CIVIL editor, and I would like to ask you to either make your comments more constructive or not to comment at all. -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted and shall be acted upon, however bear in mind that it's part of the trauma of being stalked.--Domitius 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Bitte.--Domitius 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ένα ορφανό οκ. οκ λοιπόν :)

Thanatos666 01:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

όσον αφορά τις μεταγραφές όμως όπως έγραψα και στον ΝικοSilver τα greeklish είναι απλά λάθος. Thanatos666 01:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] συνεχεια

Ακόμα και αν θεωρήσουμε την μεταγραφή βάσει της συγχρονης προφοράς-ηχητικής της γλώσσας μας σωστη(ούτε αυτό βέβαια συμβαινει,sτην πραγματικότητα όπως ξέρεις υπάρχει greeklish χαμός) ,τότε φίλτατε,
στο αγγλικο αλφάβητο Athina ηχεί-προφέρεται Αθάινα και όχι Αθήνα. Σου θυμίζω ότι η παρούσα εγκυκλοπαίδεια απευθύνεται στον υπόλοιπο πλανήτη και δη στο αγγλόφωνο κοινό.Δεν απευθύνεται (κυρίως) σε μας τους νεοελληνες. Ηχητική μεταγραφή (όσον το δυνατόν καλλίτερη,1-1 ούτως η άλλως αντιστοίχιση αδύνατη,θυμίσου μεταξύ άλλων,οτι στα νεοελληνικά εν αντιθέσει με τους αγγλόφωνους έχουμε σταθερή ένταση,constant stressing) λοιπον βάσει σύγχρονης προφοράς απ'το ελληνικό στο αγγλικό αλφάβητο ώστε να καταλαβαίνουν οι ξένοι πως προφέρουμε ΕΜΕΙΣ τις λέξεις ,εν τοιαύτη περιπτώσει ειναι Atheena.
Τέλος ,το ότι η συντριπτική πλειοψηφία των νεοελληνων χρησιμοποιεί εξ αγνοίας και πλειστάκις εκ βλακείας, λάθος μεταγραφή (για την ακρίβεια μεταγραφεεεεες),δεν αποτελεί σοβαρό επιχείρημα όσον αφορά μια οποιαδήποτε σοβαρη ακαδημαική εργασία ή και εγκυκλοπαίδεια.

Ουκ εν τωι πολλωι το ευ.

Χρύση τόμη πάντως για να μη μαλώνουμε.Εν ευθέτω χρόνω στο Greece θα βάλω αμφότερες μεταγραφές με αναφορά στα greeklish.

Για τα λοιπά λάθη όμως,ήτοι τα italics ,τα κεφαλαία κτλ ,σ'ευχαριστω πολύ που μου έδειξες ποιες οι συμβάσεις της Wikipedia.Αν ελέγξεις τις διόρθωσα.

τα λέμε

Thanatos666 02:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oops

oops,kind of funny,
I've written to you against η to i transliterations and in that writtings in greek ,I made an ή to ί orthographical mistake .
So replace above θυμίσου θυμήσου
:)
Thanatos666 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] so shame of you

since you understand Albanian language you know as well that the most dangerous enemy of Albanians are Albanians itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.24.246.143 (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Historical revisionism

Just like (some) Macedonian Slavic historians claim that they descend from the ancient hellenic Macedonians, do do many Bosniac historians (post-1995) claim that they descent from Illyrians that populated Bosnia BC, presenting continuation, how they were slavicized and how the subsequent Serb & Croat states were merely "occupations" of Bosnia. The last and weirdest of the points lies in the claim that Serbs & Croats have been invented in the 19th century by their neighboring nation-states and created from Christian Bosniaks.

Normally unsupported anywhere beyond the dreams of the people that invent such things, the research does base itself on age-old semi-famous Croatian historian by the name of Nada Klaić that denies the assimilationist Croat & Serb views and some other (though highly insignificant) ex Yugoslav people. A British journalist by the name of Noel Malcolm has contributed greatly to the histories of Bosnia and Kosovo, but has proven himself slightly one-sided (using double standards: favoring a "new" people at one place, and the "ancestral" at the other - in both cases Moslem). Due to the fact he's the only living western interested in our history, his works have reached some level of popularity in the world - though he has his own bad sides, as his articles on Dinosaurs have reached the pinnacle of ridicule from paleontologists - some jokes about him I heard myself from first hand :).
Of course, the researches of these people're used only as a basis for such (to my opinion as a historian, irredentist) research; not one of them claims that those people are Bosniaks themselves nor some other outrageous claims. --PaxEquilibrium 13:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that there are two "excuses" for people that are claimed by different nations: either 1. The other nation lies and it's all just a fabrication (like with Mehmed-paša Sokolović and Meša Selimović) or 2. They are "national traitors", so they do not belong to us anyway (like with Emir Kusturica and Lepa Brena). --PaxEquilibrium 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea i know sorry! So Why history may not be deleted? You are favoring something or not? Macedonia.eu 14:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Macedonia.eu

[edit] Pfff

Old problems again. You should take a look at List of Turkic states and empires. Regards. Tājik 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crimes

Crimes of Bosniaks? Yes, they do exist. But, as US State Department pointed out, 90% of all crimes were commited by Serbs. Also, read about official facts about Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks at CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bk.html . The information there is official and factually correct. Bosniak 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly am I looking for? Whatever it is I can't find it.--Domitius 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause

The cause of all this "twisted controversies" is demographic change. If you look at those places (Bosnia, Kosovo), you will see that most problems came out when huge demographic trends altered the statistical population of the region (especially when a foreign element disordered the so-called "balance", such as the Ottomans in Kosovo; the ethnic cleansing of over 400,000 Christian Serbs at the end of the 19th century forever changed the demographic structure of the population alone for example). Up to the 1970s Serbs comprised the majority of Bosnia's population, but that situation changed and they were replaced by Muslims (Bosniacs). This created a huge rift between the two peoples, as nationalism grew among Serbian political Bosnian leaders who could "tolerate" the fact that there were/are more Muslims than Serbs in BH (note: this became the basis of the nationalist frenzy from the 1990s "radiated" from some circles in Belgrade and Zagreb and elsewhere which resulted in the Bosnian genocide) and the ever-growing political influence over the state & administration of Bosnisn Muslims (a very huge leap from a community that boycotted institutions to the "ruling class").

P.S. I think it's likely that you'll lose your bet. :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trolling

Domitius in editing Athens .wrote

who has been trolling this article? please see the "origin of name" for prior versions and do not dismiss the mainstream transliteration scheme of modern Greek (used also by Britannica) as "Greeklish"

trolling? ok Domitie,if you say so,trolling,...
so for the ,edited-written by neohellenes, part of the english wikipedia, correcting errors and adding concrete data and information to the encyclopaedia is obviously wrong.
dystychos anamenomenon.
I won't bother anymore with you guys.
Simply ανεπίδεκτοι μαθήσεως .

Νεοέλληνες με γειά σας ,τα καινούργια σας τα στέκια ,χάρισμά σας!

Thanatos666 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when you go around dismissing mainstream transliterations (used by all sources) nowadays as Greeklish [8] just because you don't agree with it and after having received administrative guidance on the topic at your talkpage, then yes, it fits as WP:DE, doesn't it?--Domitius 22:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
PS - in response to your assertion that Athina in fact transliterates "Αθάινα", you are wrong. Point me to one example of that being used? Hippocrates isn't Αϊποκράτης in Greek, nor is Makedonia Μακεδοναΐα.--Domitius 22:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] last reply

φιλε μαθε (εσυ και το λοιπον νεοπανελληνιον) ελληνικα και αγγλικα περαν του απλου επιπεδου,
προταση για τα αγγλικα :
ξεκινα με την αλφαβητα των αγγλικων και ακου τα γραμματα καθως ηχουν. Μετα ρωτα κανα αγγλο,ξεκινα απο εναν αγραμματο,περνα απο "γραμματιζουμενους",και καταληξε σε φιλολογους και ελληνιστες.Μετα ρωτα ατομα αλλης δυτικοευρωπαικης εθνοτητος .Μετα αναζητησε ξενες πηγες,υπαρχουν απειρες.
Τελος οπως εχω ξαναγραψει,μαθε για το IPA.

Βαρεθηκα.

Δεν τα ξαναλεμε

Neohellenes me geia sas ta kainoyrgia sas ta stekia charisma sas!

Thanatos666 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Edits

Please discuss the matters on the Temp Page, found here

Please do not revert the page again. We are directing the topics to a Temp Page to be discussed and to save time and space in preparing the article.Arcayne 23:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

A similar thing is in that that the Albanians [and only Albanians, no other people] in Kosovo are rarely called "Albanians" nowadays, but "Kosovars" instead (strictly referring to them). Anyway, telling one side of the coin, I should also point the other - these very facts were used as pretexts for crimes & atrocities committed against Bosnian Muslims and Albanians during the Yugoslav wars. --PaxEquilibrium 12:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. the language most Bosniaks speak is called the Bosnian language. --PaxEquilibrium 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Newest researches (Western, Russian and domestic) show this: Russia is not going use the Veto, but will remain in abstinence. In return, the West will ignore the Abkhazia & South Ossetia problems, and the countries might gradually become independent. Although the situation on the Serb Republic in Bosnia and Herzegovina remains controversial, Moscow and Belgrade might after than insist on its secession and the West might recognize that a new plan must be drawn for the solution of BH.

After these events, I think that either an "Unholy Alliance" of both the separatist & pro-unionist sides (of various kinds) will be formed in an attempt to freeze the status quo global situation, or a period of dramatic changes as a New World Order shall present itself to the eyes of the mankind. --PaxEquilibrium 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, you're gonna attract a lot of attention with that edit (I'm not competent enough to decide whether it's "OK" or not, but vast edit wars have been fought over this before [e.g. User:Emir Arven & User:Millosh; the huge discussion went so heated, that I have started a Request for comment on Emir]). --PaxEquilibrium 16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello I saw you had edited some of my contributions. I hope we avoid edit wars and things like this. Are you from Greece? Wish you a nice evening I hope we can manage to "cooperate" with each other --Noah30 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. ps, nice spread of languages you have there! If the stone material goes up again I will source it because, for better of worse, it is quite clear - in my judgment - that it is promoted by the government. But it is better off the page. Politis 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosetta Stone

The thing about pseudoscience is that, by definition, it is not supported by real scientists. The paragraph is commented with references, including the "paper" itself, as posted on a government site. Many more references are in the talk page.

The information was originally edited into the article by a FYR source as "facts". The current version, with proper references and criticism was posted to balance the original edit.

The theory is being actively promoted by a government, which means that for the 2 million people in the FYR it is not an obscure issue, but it is being taught as "The Truth" . That is exactly why there needs to be critical commentary on it on a widely read place like WP. Regards, sys < in 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We are both posting on each other's talk page at the same time - pardon any confusion). Everything written about the stone in the past century states that the middle text is Demotic Egyptian, a semitic language. Complete translations of the Demotic text exist. The paper contradicts all these previous theories, and (therefore) all previous theories contradict it. By definition, then, there exist volumes and volumes of properly written sources that refute this "theory". The works of Thomas Young are references for refuting this theory. Regards, sys < in 15:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
And, again, on the "undue weight" principle: An entire country is being taught by its government that this is the truth. This is part of an international conflict involving at least 5 million people. Official state "science" by any coutry is, by definition, significant. 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


The problem is that there is every proof that this is happening "under the auspices" [9] of a government organization. The paper is on the site of a government university, and one of the references is the government-run "Macedonian Press Agency".

The points that need to be made for the article to be complete are:

  • This theory has support by Government-run academia in the FYR
  • The paper puts forward a Text==>"Ancient Macedonian"==>"Ancient Slavic" theory. Read the complete paper in [10] and search for "slav". For example, they claim that an "old Slavic" name for the god "Dionis" is used.
  • The theory contradicts all that is currently being taught about the stone

Regards, 16:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Hello, thanks for your message. I can speak English with a good level so I think I'll be ok until it gets too technical :)

It sometimes happens that admins abuse power though right? --MiddleEastern - For Palestine 17:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] church site

The official site also has a link to 'Tracing the Script and the Language of the Ancient Macedonians'. That link is not active as I am writing this, but I have a downloaded copy if you are interested. The authors of that 'propagandistic' theory claim in that article that the middle text should be called ancient macedonian, "The mistake in current scholarship is that to learn the middle text of the Rosetta Stone it prefers the ancient Egyptian language (called new Egyptian in the available literature) and the area of Egypt, but not ancient Macedonian language and the area of the Balkans". Politis 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is the link you meant.--Domitius 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the official site Politis 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Domitius Did you check my edit on Gibraltar before removing it? Or it is just the usual way? The one who press further is right. Good policy! Congratulations! you won, I don't plan to fight on it (I'm not British)

[edit] Tungjatjeta

Could you take a look at Bulgaria? Faleminderit. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Montenegro

Prince Nikola I Petrović-Njegoš ruled for half a century the Princedom of Montenegro (from 1860). Both the longest Serb ruler and one of the greatest (declared national hero) in the history. He won independence for his realm, gave it access to the sea, greatly enlarged it, built nearly half of all the institutions, building and organizations that stood there, created a constitutional well-organized hereditary monarchy (most notably by creating a constitution and organizing a full-scale political system from a band of chiefs) from a tiny insignificant absolutist principality. Aside from becoming one of the most popular Serbian writers, all the other things he did are simply far too numerous to list them here (establishing an autocephalous branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church for Montenegro). So its expectable that he gave himself on his 50th jubilee of reign (which if I recall not many reach) some level of reward ("His Royal Highness" title) after becoming a living legend (plus, this act even more raised Montenegro's appeal on the international scene, although brought agitation from Serbia).

Next to that, he just came into bad relations with the Kingdom of Serbia (because of many different reasons), and out of the necessity of his realm's pride & survival (plus he hated that Serbia had took over the leading role in the Serbian people), it was expected from him to raise his country's level from "Princedom" to a much-earned "Kingdom" (to equate that of Serbia's).

In addition to that, Prince Nicholas had become quite unpopular amongst the people (most notably politicians, intelligence and even the Church and later the common-folk) because of his absolutist reign that lacked the freedom enjoyed elsewhere nearby (Serbia, Habsburg Monarchy, to some cases even Turkey). The political leadership/elite in Montenegro went into opposition, so he started to rule with the help of his personal friends & the nobility strictly. So, in such hard times, his personal friends (the Parliament) decided to further magnify his character by giving him a regal honor (AFAIK this to an extent has also sped up his demise, as many saw this as a further autocratic act).

So, mainly because of these reasons, Nikola Petrovic was crowned King of Montenegro ("by the mercy of God", blah, blah) in 1910 and his small Princedom became a Kingdom.
Did this answer your question? --PaxEquilibrium 15:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
..or not? --PaxEquilibrium 21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And as for the lit'le Montenegrin Principality that preceded the Kingdom, it was established in 1852 on the soil of Ottoman territory that the Ottomans never ever really ruled. Do you know Asterix & Obelix and the Gallic tribe never conquered by the Romans? That's Montenegro (and the Ottoman Empire's the Roman Empire). The analogy is almost identical. :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If the security council adopts it, then Kosovo will definitely be independent (no doubt there).
Per language: from factual & personal experience, the greatest part of the population still considers the Montenegrin language a silly fabrication. However, the current terrifyingly corrupted (and partially undemocratic) I'll even dare say authoritarian regime in Montenegro (Milosevic's legacy remains in MNE to this very day) pushes hard for a Montenegrin language (you can see that by viewing the official sites of the municipalities in which DPS is in power there's only "Montenegrin" and the official government site just recently changed from "Serbian" to "Montenegro-Serbian"). Statistically speaking, 22% of the population self-style their language Montenegrin, rather than Serbian. --PaxEquilibrium 23:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

ban evading is pointless. Don't vandalize Radovis! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.119.119.37 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Quit [personal attack removed]

OK, I'm sick with this. If you don't stop [personal attack removed] and/or calling me Greier, I will report you for being disruptive/abusive/whatever is appropriate. Iblardi 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BAN.--Domitius 19:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You certainly have a lot of nerve. Goodbye. Iblardi 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

La revedere.--Domitius 20:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Why don't you volunteer for an IP check so we can sort this out once and for all?)

Why don't you go ahead and ask for it? By the way: appearing out of the nothing in a discussion where you have no part in and speaking speaking foreign languages to me,[11] [12] calling me Greier,[13] as you just did,[14] is obviously done for the sole purpose to taunt me. You had no involvement there. This is considered [personal attack removed]. And no, it's not difficult to guess that the language you used would be Rumanian. Iblardi 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Going ahead and asking for it would entail having to dig up evidence, make a convincing statement etc, a time consuming and boring process. If you accepted, that could be linked to and the checkuser admins could make the IP check on that. As for your assertions that a Greek has no business on Greek related articles, I'm not even going to grace that with a response.--Domitius 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be OK with it, the procedure was started before but didn't materialize. One last time then. I am not a Rumanian, I am not involved -well, I seem to be now, but hope not to be in the future- in any dispute concerning ethnics, Balkans, or whatever it is that you, Miskin and others seem to be so sensitive about. I am an editor who operates in good faith and tries to make contributions that make the encyclopedia better, and there is nothing more to it. As I said to Miskin before, you have got the wrong (first) impression. That is unfortunate, but let's just try to leave each other alone now. Iblardi 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - I must admit though, you're standard of English is considerably higher than Greier's so if you are Greier, you must be using a spell checker at all times :) --Domitius 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Greier used to say things like "sayed" instead of "said", used to call people "ultranationalists" and make accusations of "weasel words" a lot, used a grave accent as an apostrophe etc)

LOL. Some users seem to think my English needs some polishing too, though :) [15] OK, let's go and do more useful things then. No hard feelings. Iblardi 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Jkelly, an admin, supported my edit. He is of higher authority than you. He validated my edit and you have reverted it THREE times. Once more and you will be in violation of the 3RR. Please desist Thegreyanomaly 22:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, a video clip from MSNBC is independent. It is a reliable new source Thegreyanomaly 22:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Şebinkarahisar

Sure, I think Aldux will do it. Khoikhoi 04:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: changes

Don't you know? Belgrade refused the plan and Pristina accepted it a long time ago. Demonstrations? No, peace & stability reigns there; it's no longer the fiery 2001. Nationalist websites? Sure, there are tens (including petitions for independence support). Statements by government officials? Milorad Dodik (Prime Minister) and his Independent Social Democrats won the 2006 election due to their campaign allegations for a possibility of an independent state. After Montenegro broke off its state union with Serbia, Dodik pushed for independence. But after horrifying reactions from everywhere, he abandoned it. Now, the second phase would be if Kosovo becomes independent (in which case I believe, the Independent Social Democrats will go further). Nationalists demands come from Sarajevo regarding the abolition of the RS (regarding the whole Genocide thing), so Dodik now resorts to open near-promises of independence. Also Sarajevo's demand that the Srebrenica district be declared a special status district and removed from Serbian territory has further antagonized Bosnia and Herzegovina's two entities.

Well, I don't think it should be in that proportion (18%/37%). I think it's relevant to see where the people lived. For example, there might be a country in which people X formed 90% of the population, but live only in a single city; whereas the people y forms 10% but lives practically everywhere else of the huge state's territory. That should be taken to granted as well (I don't know the demographic data for Cyprus).

P.S. BTW just to inform ya, Cyprus is one of the worst international "enemies" of Serbia (very. very bad relations). I think that only Albania is in worse relations with Serbia like Cyprus. --PaxEquilibrium 09:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
True, yeah; on the surface, because of a common Kosovo-North Cyprus problem. But in truth, certain political circles in Serbia cannot stand the "insolence" of the country. It is suspected that Cyprus owes Serbia billions of Euros. The US & EU forced harshly Cyprus to help Serbia track the money down, and the claim was that this was one of the main conditions to join EU. However, Cyprus joined even without it. During the 1990s, FRY was under sanctions and Cyprus was the only firm "gateway" for Yugoslavia to the outer world. However, the transactions just piled, piled and piled as tens of billions of dollars were moved to Cyprus )the term is known here as "State robbery of the State"). There is another side of the story however; Nicosia claims that everything it did was in the good will towards a closely-related people under heavy troubles; but it is to my belief that the current democratic government of Cyprus is protecting the old dudes from the 1990s and that it's acting like Switzerland (you know that about the Jewish money).
The West also claims that the reason of Cyprus' current high economic status is to be thanked in great part to the Serbian money. --PaxEquilibrium 14:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Cyprus was enjoying a high standard of living and booming economy even before the dissolution of Yugoslavia; such claims, if they are being made, seem greatly exaggerated. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. As I said, the whole thing's far too controversial. The only that that is for sure (where the money went further, who did it, etc. is all not quite certain) is that billions left for Cyprus throughout the 1990s. --PaxEquilibrium 21:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On MiddleEastern

Hey. I tried to engage in conversation there but as per my comments I think she's gone to bed. If she is located in the region I am in as she claims to be, it's 1:23am and that would make sense. I'll pop in tomorrow to see if I can be of further service. Tiamut 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's totally okay. I've been referring to MiddleEastern as a she but I don't know recall if he/she ever said anything about it. I tend to use "she" a lot to balance out the "he" assumptions I guess :) and maybe because I'm a she. Anyway, I appreciate your sense of self-reflection. Tiamut 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/m/User_talk%7EDomitius_Archive1_210f.html"