Thanks for trying to bring some common sense to Roma people edit war. You may perhaps ask for page protection - I have seen such situations and there's no other reasonable way to deal with them. I have neither time nor stamina left to spent it on this topic. Pavel Vozenilek 01:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I started Request of Arbitration due to insults from User:Sumnakay. Since you are knowledgeable of the situation, you may add qualified statement there. Pavel Vozenilek 28 June 2005 22:23 (UTC)

I was wondering if you would be interested in helping me in a bit of a project. I think at the moment the various pages on 'country', 'nation' and 'state' are vague, contradictory and often repeat each other. I would like to see a page along the lines of British Isles (terminology) that attempts to describe:

• a. The technical differences betweeen the terms
• b. The informal, often inaccurate, uses of the terms
• c. Political motivations behind the mis-use or appropriation of the various terms

I think personally that creating such a page would be better than attempting to fit the info into any of the one pages - such as 'country', 'nation' or 'state', which are trying to do differnt things.

Now I'm not going to pretend that I'm gonna be capable of completing such an article myself, but I'd rather present it on Wikipedia in a relatively complete state, than as a 'work in progress'.

I was wondering if you would take a look at my first - relatively crude - draft here. Feel free to - indeed, please do - make changes or recommended changes.

Cheers Robdurbar 13:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I am writing to ask if you would be interested in taking part in a discusiion I have started over at Template talk:Enlightenment on the inclusion criteria - I remember you took part in the earlier discussions. Sorry for spamming you. --AVIosad^(talk) 14:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What precisely did you mean? Also, I can't seem to get the Light Blue for Pastor... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, all three are mentioned.

Also, the B92 has every page in both Serbo-Croat and English, so I believe you can view it too?

P.S. Those ethnic minority parties barely receive any votes, and only one can pass a census in local elections. BTW the Radicals have some support from the minorities at the north, for example a lot in Vojvodina (most Slovaks, and even some Hungarians). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears you have completely the wrong end of the stick. We are not pushing that Wales is not a country; we are simply quoting several official sources which say that it is not, and say that these should be included alongside the other viewpoint - which is what is called neutral point of view (- when both views are included). At no point did we say that saying Wales is a country is pushing POV; we said that only saying that, and ignoring the other sources, would be POV. Please read the discussion next time before you jump in and make haphazard claims.

Oh, and also, where did you get the idea English was not my first language? Gozitancrabz (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came across this list the other day, and for some reason started adding citations and cleaning out dud entries. I see you have been policing it too. Sort of interesting, but a hodge-podge of very different types of movement. It badly needs further clean-up, ideally with at least one "proof of existence" citation for each entry, and dropping past movements that have faded out or moved into mainstream politics. But some entries are daft. I arbitrarily removed the current elected government of Bermuda from the list. It is true that every few years they discuss changing their relationship with the UK, but this is hardly a secessionist movement except in the broadest sense of the word. I suspect that some of the other ones are even sillier. There are websites that discuss secession of Maine from the USA, Alberta from Canada and Cornwall from England, but are these serious movements like the Tamil Tigers? Or are they jokes like this one? Any thoughts on somehow classifying the entries? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose you are right - there is no easy way to draw the line, so some frivolous entries will remain along with the much more serious ones. I tried putting some of the content into table form, but did not save the changes for two reasons: you can't have headings in a table, and editors are likely to struggle with the mark-up. So this layout is probably best (although I would prefer less bold face). In some cases I have put in a one-line description of status, which may help the casual reader distinguish the different types of movement. On the other hand, descriptions may attract content of the "Long live Lilliput! down with Blefuscu!" variety. No simple solution. An article like this is interesting and useful and a natural magnet for people who want to push their own viewpoint. It will just need constant monitoring. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was especially impressed with you work, so I placed a barnstar on your page, putting it in a userbox. That probably won't be the way you like it, so feel free to edit/arange anyway you like. Piratejosh85 (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]