| Revision as of 02:59, 5 November 2008 editJakezing (talk | contribs)2,194 edits →sigh← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:15, 5 November 2008 edit undoJakezing (talk | contribs)2,194 edits →sighNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| : on your talk page.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup> /<sub>]</sub>''' 02:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC) | : on your talk page.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup> /<sub>]</sub>''' 02:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Reply here, Second, Pure political fact says that a country that says nothing about the issue is still in essence saying no. think about it, They didn't say they were rejecting kosovos independance; However, at the same time, they never said they DID recognize kosovo, and as such still enter diplomatic relations with serbia in the context that kosovo is a part of serbia. Yes, nuetral and saying no are different propositions in color cases, but in a black and white case such as recognition and rejection, saying nothing still has the same end result as saying no in the first place, comprende?--] (]) 02:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC) | :Reply here, Second, Pure political fact says that a country that says nothing about the issue is still in essence saying no. think about it, They didn't say they were rejecting kosovos independance; However, at the same time, they never said they DID recognize kosovo, and as such still enter diplomatic relations with serbia in the context that kosovo is a part of serbia. Yes, nuetral and saying no are different propositions in color cases, but in a black and white case such as recognition and rejection, saying nothing still has the same end result as saying no in the first place, comprende?--] (]) 02:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::So when the only possible choices are yes and no, and you say neither, it dosn't produce the same effect as saying no? THINK ABOUT IT, IGNORE ALL THE POLCIIES all the guidelines, and just think, ignore all these cstupid rules for wikipedia, okay. just think in black and white which this is a part of. Yes, those countries have wanted to stay nuetral by saying nothing, but in the end, their stance of staying nuetral is still saying no. Until they say yes, they are always saying no, whatever the reason. This is simple logic, you can't be nuetral, a 3rd way, in a 2 answer only option. Yes, they are officaly nuetral and havn't said yes or no, but again, they never said the word yes which automaticly puts them in the no catagory.The world is filled with colors, but not all choices are like that. Du HÖrst mich?--] (]) 03:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:15, 5 November 2008
 | Daedalus969 is taking an unexpected wikibreak due to computer problems, but hopes to be back soon in full ability. He is still able to edit, but only from that of other family members' computers, which he has sporadic access to. |
|
Welcome to my talk page! I will reply on your talk page unless you prefer otherwise as usually noted on your talk page. If you are an anonymous editor, I will reply here.
|
 Archives | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re: Edits by Indef blocked users
Fair enough. But I think you're mistaken about the need to revert all edits by indefinitely blocked users. Even if a user is banned (and as far as I can see that user was not banned, just indef blocked), this section pretty much says that there's no blanket rule that helpful edits must be reverted. The edit by the sock was helpful because the name of the state really should be linked in the first sentence. I'm going to re-link it now. - Mark 07:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Daedalus969...
It is plain and simple fact, on that page there are 2 types of countries. Those blue countries which DO recognize, and those red countries which DO NOT, you can't be nuetral in a recognize and don't recognize question, theres only 2 choices, not 3, therfor, i am not promoting POV, i am stating the SIMPLE FACT that if the country hasn't recognized kosovo, it is saying it rejects kosovo. russia and serbia just outright said it, all those other countries, they just don';t wanna get either side mad, but are still not recognizing kosovo, see the problem with your "recognize, neutral and don't recognize" thing, if they are neutral, they still are not recognizing kosovos Move for independance. Hell, this si coming gfrom somebody that should want to have as much blue and light blue on that map since i support kosovo, so you can't call me pushing serbian pov when im in the anti serbian pov camp.--Jakezing (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't revert my edits.
It's rude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by G2K11 (talk • contribs)
- I'm reverting your edits because they are vandalism. You are blanking others' comments on article talk pages with no explanation given, and your actions have been reported.— Dædαlus /Improve 03:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
sigh
you are very persistant. "What comment are uyou talking about then, because i'v said many things.--Jakezing (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus /Improve 02:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Reply here, Second, Pure political fact says that a country that says nothing about the issue is still in essence saying no. think about it, They didn't say they were rejecting kosovos independance; However, at the same time, they never said they DID recognize kosovo, and as such still enter diplomatic relations with serbia in the context that kosovo is a part of serbia. Yes, nuetral and saying no are different propositions in color cases, but in a black and white case such as recognition and rejection, saying nothing still has the same end result as saying no in the first place, comprende?--Jakezing (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- So when the only possible choices are yes and no, and you say neither, it dosn't produce the same effect as saying no? THINK ABOUT IT, IGNORE ALL THE POLCIIES all the guidelines, and just think, ignore all these cstupid rules for wikipedia, okay. just think in black and white which this is a part of. Yes, those countries have wanted to stay nuetral by saying nothing, but in the end, their stance of staying nuetral is still saying no. Until they say yes, they are always saying no, whatever the reason. This is simple logic, you can't be nuetral, a 3rd way, in a 2 answer only option. Yes, they are officaly nuetral and havn't said yes or no, but again, they never said the word yes which automaticly puts them in the no catagory.The world is filled with colors, but not all choices are like that. Du HÖrst mich?--Jakezing (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)