"
Well I might consider and then might even agree with you that perhaps one could point me to WP:DBAD (here spelled in a form of euphemism for my potential benefit -) ), as I consider you had pointed me (  ;-)  ), but that still hasn't given any solutions to the disagreement which goes on the talk page (here I mean the Talk:International recognition of Kosovo page). As far as the WP:RM (if this is what you had in mind) is concerned, my opinion is that the third conversator  thinks other of the procedure (I'm still not sure that there is one). Moreover, I'm certain that for the time being he doesn't think of another POV of the ""procedure"", because of this words of his, which are somehow unclear (at least to me): ""Any new proposals will be speedy closed. Persistence will be dealt with sanctions as per the WP:ARBMAC probation this article is under the scope of."" concerning the closure of ""proposal"". I'm not sure if he meant new proposals through the talk page of International recognition of Kosovo (""IroK"") or through the WP:RM. Actually, I find WP:RM somehow vague on the sequence of steps to be taken when new request/proposal is to be made. I've tried to follow the procedure proposed as it is given at WP:RM, but then I might misunderstood something. I might consider asking for explanation on the very own project's page, as for that matter. Hus, as a formalist as I consider you at the moment, I must ask you now this: when you wrote all controversial move proposals must go through... in order to have any validity you actully wanted to write all controversial move proposals should go through...in order to have any validity. I suppose I pointed out ( one might consider I've used irony, I apologize to those) to the ambiguity of interpretation of the potential procedure, since the very procedure hasn't been tagged as a guideline, but still named a project, to the least. Maybe, some other place exists, which I'm not aware of - I apologize in advance for me being somewhat a whiner, since I've been passive and not searching for potential one myself. Not to mention judgemental and still non-constructive enough, to contribute myself (although recognition of the problem might be considered as form of contiributing action -? -/ ). Sorry for that.
Ijanderson977, you asked: Why are you not claiming that this article has a POV title: International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Well, actually, I do consider this title is biased also. But personally I consider the ""IroK"" more globally important, not just to me, as one might think it is. If the bias is dealt with this issue (IroK title), it could be dealt elsewhere also. And IMHO it is good to keep the discussion in one place -> maybe creating a new page, where this discussion concerning the term ""recognition"" (or more) could be taken, should be considered as an idea.
All the best. 's talk "