Jump to content

User talk:Bbik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Duja (talk | contribs) at 09:18, 13 March 2007 (→‎sentence: - on Bay of Kotor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Bbik, 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!  STTW (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Anna Kang

Hate you. :P I just got around to editing Kang's page, only to find you got there literally minutes before me. Well, you did a nice job anyways. Cheers. SavantEdge 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's been happening to me on just about every page I try to fix up. There's still plenty to do though! Even aside from the lack of inline references, several of the bits I added are little more than copy/paste from the websites, and they still have more info that I don't have time to sort through. -Bbik 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golubac fortress

You could post your question at Portal:Serbia or Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages were someone with better serbian can help and perhaps provide with other sources. Remember that the sources in an article can be of any language !!

Regarding content direct copied from another source into wikipedia see Wikipedia:Copyrights. It is not allowed and either the article has to be deleted or re-written. Happy editing, STTW (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golubac Translations

Translation (Stari Grad Golubac)

Hi. How can I help? --VKokielov 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wery good  ;)

I'll translate and send the translation, and I'll try before Sunday. --VKokielov 05:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the translation

Translation fix - parohije. --VKokielov 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is part of the translation of the web page (not the wiki article)

I have two more paragraphs to finish.

The old town of Golubac

(captions in reading order)

View from the Danube

The old town during winter

Sunset

Trajan's stone

(text)

A little bit about how Golubac came to be

Golubac is first mentioned in historical sources in 1335, and made out to be a fortress with a Hungarian military crew. Of course, the town was founded before then, but we can't say when it was built, nor can we guess who built it.

Inscriptions from Roman times were found, and this is evidence that there was an ancient settlement where Golubac is, but that settlement has not been identified. Neither can we say reliably whether the settlement and fortress existed before the ninth century or was built only when between Hungary and Serbia [sic], begun after the death of Dragutin, fed by the ample ascent and territorial aspirations of both countries, and finished only when the Turks came to be a dangerous mutual enemy.

When Golubac first appears in sources -- the same year -- there was a war between the Hungarian king Robert I and King Dushan. A military conflict was apparently in Machva; the Hungarians withdrew across the Sava, but Golubac never changed hands. In 1337 again a Hungarian crew was there. In the wars which followed in 1338 and 1344-5 there was once more no change.

From a (pariski) letter to the Hungarian king Ludovik 1 of Anzuja written in the beginning of 1346 we know that Machva, Belgrade, and Golubac belonged to the Hungarians. The bishop of Kotorska at that time claimed rights to gather the church (tax?) in those towns. Because the Kotorska diocese wielded Catholic parishes in the Serbian state, we must presume that its spreading-out to the Sava and Danube came at a time when the regions abreast the Drina were under Serbian control, and that was only when Dragutin was king (1284-1316 and 1347). Golubac is in Hungarian hands, its castellan is Toma, the Transylvanian voivoda.

Golubac saw the passing of tsar Dushan when it was a Hungarian fort. Meanwhile, the territories around Golubac were in Serbian hands. On these after the death of tsar Dushana the powerful family Rastislalich rose to influence and won independence. The last feudal lord from this family, Radic Brankovich, was evicted (according to the letters of Serbian chroniclers?) by knez Lazar in 1379. Through all this time nothing is said of Golubac. Knez Lazar as lord of the nearby territories gave outlying villages as gifts to monasteries in Wallachia, but Golubac did not belong to him.

--VKokielov 17:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of current responsibilities at college, and because I'm not very motivated, I haven't made this site the way it ought to be and the way I expect it to be. So, if you want to help, tell me about it. Thanks for understanding. --VKokielov 03:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sentence

"Isto tako se nemože pouzdano reći da li je naselje i utvrđenje postojalo pre XIV veka ili je izgrađeno tek kada je između Ugarske i Srbije, započeto posle Dragutinove smrti, pothranjivano snažnim usponom i teritorijalnim aspiracijama obe drzave, a završeno tek pojavom Turaka kao opasnog zajedničkog neprijatelja."

I translated this word for word. It doesn't seem to make sense. That little word je is hanging in vacuum, and so is the "kada when" before it. I suspect that our author forgot a sentence or two after the comma. --VKokielov 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it doesn't make sense indeed; some part is either missing, or the author forgot how the sentence began when he was about to complete it ([1]). (And, btw, conjoined spelling of "ne može" and split spelling of "ne zapaženi" later in the text are usually signs of low literacy skills :-( ). Duja► 12:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been questioning the reliability/accuracy of that page for a while... There are some other parts that don't really make sense either, though because of date/location conflicts rather than wording -- the whole pariski letter paragraph, for one (Is it really referring to Kotor/Gulf of Kotor getting tithes, as far away as it is? Or is there another similarly named place a bit closer, which I can't find mention of anywhere?). I've been trying to find confirmation in other places for the information I'm taking from it, but with so little out there (at least, so little that I can find), it's difficult, and it covers an almost entirely separate timeframe as the other pages, too. It's quite impressive how much semi-related Serbian history I've been learning while trying to sort it all out. And I thought adding a bit more information to the article would be quick and easy! -Bbik 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitively the Bay of Kotor/Diocese of Kotor, which has been a strong cultural and trading centre during much of the history, and the site of Catholic bishopry (along with Archdiocese of Bar/Tivari). It's possible that its influence reached so far north at the time, but I wouldn't trust that page either... Duja► 09:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golubac (Serbian Wiki)

Ah damn. I would be more than happy to help. I really would. But that page is written in Cyrillic. Now, you have to understand, Croatian and Serbian are VERY much alike (think British and American English), but Serbs use both the Latin and the Cyrillic alphabet for writing. Croatians only use the Latin alphabet. And sadly, my Cyrillic is only slightly better than your's :).

But I do have an idea... I'm looking for a Cyrillic-to-Latin converter. It should be pretty easy, it's a straight character-for-character conversion. If I can't find one, I'll code one myself. Hold on. I might just be able to help.

I'll get back to you soon... -- xompanthy 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must be your lucky day... I just got that text transliterated from Cyrillic into Latin. Working on a translation now... might be a while though... few hours at least. -- xompanthy 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK... I started working on this. You can find what I translated so far at the subpage User:Xompanthy/golubac. It's past 11 PM here in Croatia, so I don't have time to do it all today. I'll probably add a bit more today though. Barring anything suddenly popping up, it will be done tomorrow. But I'm not guaranteeing anything. It will take more than a few hours to do this right, and I need to find the time. I should have the five-hours-or-so tomorrow, but anything can happen.
On a side note, the Serbian (Croatian too) language isn't all that English-friendly. Not to mention that that article isn't one of the best written ones or the fact I REALLY don't have time to make this a professional translation. So expect some errors, slightly strange sentences and whatnot.
Cheers. -- xompanthy 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I can't believe it. A Latinica tab? Great... Goes to show how a lot of code can be replaced with just using common sense...
Anyway, I just read through the entire Golubac article on the Serbian Wikipedia, and frankly, I doubt a lot of it will do you any good. Don't get me wrong, I can translate it, that's not the problem. It's just that the vast majority of text is "wall xyz connects towers # and #. It has a gate that leads to xyz2. Stairs can be found at xyz3, and they lead up wall xyz. etc..." Why would anyone put 10 paragraphs of THAT into an encyclopedia is beyond me. Actually, I believe it was taken out of a tour guide. The text goes with the numbered map, so people can explore the fortress. For now, I'll translate the "History" part, the "Golubac today" and the "Towers" section, and I'll do the other "wall from # to #" stuff if you say you need it.
OK? 'Cause I just don't see the point of the other stuff. Could be just me though... -- xompanthy 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright status says the picture is in the public domain. I find that very strange, but hey, if it says so, it says so. And BTW, I can edit that picture in Photoshop and replace the Cyrillic with English if you need it. -- xompanthy 12:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The translation is now complete. -- xompanthy 12:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK... the last two sections have no information that's not already present in the Serbian wiki. The Babakaj stone... Now, that "stone" is the best translation I could come up with, but it's more like "rock face", but that's not entirely accurate. You see, the original word, "stijena" does not have an equivalent in English. Here's how I understand it: there's a cliff on the opposite side of the ravine they called Babakaj, and they had a chain connected to it to control traffic. I have no idea how that was supposed to work though. I'm just telling you how I'm reading it. :)
Concerning tower 10... I think that that is the image of the Smederevo fort, though I really can't be sure. But if the picture is titled "Smederevo 1940", I think it's a safe bet. Now onto the church thing... the Orthodox church doesn't function like the Catholic church does. It's not unified across countries. Every country with an Orthodox main religion has their "own" orthodox "variation", so to speak. Country specific flavoring I guess you could call it. So a chapel of the Serbian orthodox church built with the fort itself is very solid proof the Serbs built it. And as far as I know, Hungary is Christian (I could very well be wrong, but anyway it doesn't matter).
Happy to help. -- xompanthy 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK... first off, stop apologizing :). I'm happy to help. If you need anything, just say so. Now, that first sentence is of no use. The paragraph though, made me laugh my ass off. :) Here's a translation:

That's it. The problem here is with the Serbian/Croatian word stijena, which could mean both stone, rock and cliff (even mountain in some contexts). It seems it actually is a rock. I apologize for my misinterpretation, the Serbian wiki actually states (as a complete side note, in parenthesis) it's in the middle of the Danube, and that Golubac was connected to it with "a heavy chain", again, for controlling traffic.

But that must have been one really big stone if the Turks, the girl, and the grandma were all standing on it. Here's a picture I found [2], you can see the stone in the middle. It's obviously Golubac, you can see it to the left. As always, I'm happy to help.

Cheers. -- xompanthy 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... remember that first sentence, "Stena je sa Rumunske strane Dunava pre ulaska u klisuru"? Now that I look at it, it might be useful. It says the rock is on the Romanian side of the Danube before the entrance to the gorge. Hence the guard analogy earlier. -- xompanthy 20:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kočina thing... frankly, I don't have a clue what that means. I'm fairly certain that it's a name, and not a general word. And concerning the bullet points, I incorporated any relevant information into the translation. That last italicized bit is just someone's unsourced comment (with weasel words) which I believe to be entirely incorrect. It says Lazar didn't hold the fort, but just the land around it. Don't put that in the article. I'm pretty sure it's wrong. -- xompanthy 12:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go, the two paragraphs. I still believe this to be wrong (the fact that Lazar didn't conquer the fort), but now you can decide for yourself whether you will include this information in the article. -- xompanthy 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just discovered this nice undertaking of yours (Golubac fortress); thanks. On the other hand, it was extremely difficult to follow the discussion spread accross multiple talk-pages :-). So please, reply here if you wish.

As for "Kočina krajina", it means "Koča's krajina", and refers to a short-lived free territory held by Serbs during the Austro-Turkish war 1788-1791 (no en-wiki article :-( ). Koča Anđelković (no en-wiki article :-( ), aka "Captain Koča") was the leader of the uprising. Duja► 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, wasn't expecting anyone else to even notice all this, much less actually go digging through it. It makes no difference to me where I respond, so if here is easier for you, here it is! I was actually thinking last night that this perhaps should've taken place (or at least mostly) on the article talk page instead, but moving it all over there now seems a bit silly... Perhaps I'll stick something there linking here in case people are curious and want to see where specifically stuff came from.
So, is this Austro-Turkish war the same as the Dubica War (also no page, but linked from at least a few places) that I found mentioned a few times when I was trying to figure out what "Kočina krajina" was/find an internal link? Which is the more accepted name? -Bbik 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a historian, but from what I come by googling is the following:
  • The war coincided with Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), when Austria joined Russian efforts to overwhelm the ottomans
  • Serb volunteer squads played an important role, raising the rebellion (known as Kočina krajina, in northern Serbia) and assisting Austrian troops
  • Austria and Serbs also entered Bosnia, weakly defended. Local Muslims tried to repel the invaders, but were defeated at Bosanska Dubica. Thus, only that part of the war was referred to as "Dubica War". A Google Book search result.
  • Koča was caught by Turks and impaled 1878. The Austrians apparently weren't really serious in their attempt to overpower the Ottomans, and the war ended by Treaty of Sistova 1791, whereby the Turks preserved control over Serbia, but the road was already paved for the First Serbian Uprising in 1804.
Strangely, the most sources about the War come from Serbian and Bosnian historians; fairly little in English (a few sentences here). Otoh, it suggests that Austrians had problems with Prussians in the West, so they weren't able to fully enagage against the Ottomans. Duja► 09:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Hopfner

I forgot about adding an infobox. Sorry if you feel your time was wasted! This is a good example of why improvements to an article should be made piecemeal and in situ, and not worked on separately in user pages. I have done my best with technical terms but some cannot be translated confidently without access to a university library (and mine is shut for the weekend). Xanthoxyl 12:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serif

Hi, I noticed that you diambig'd "Gothic". But you got the wrong link. The "Gothic" mentioned in that article does not mean "blackletter". Japanese gothic typeface might be the closest correct disambiguated link for the correct sense; unfortunately no one seems to be convinced that "Japanese gothic typeface" should be renamed to drop the "Japanese" connotation.—Gniw (Wing) 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is very sad, because it illustrates that knowledge can get lost. With Wikipedia's sometimes bizzare policies, things can only get worse. What happens is:
  • The word "Gothic" is an early term for "sans serif" because the "type colour" (usually called font weight nowadays) is similar to Blackletters which are also called "Gothic"
  • The Far East borrowed the name "Gothic" for sans serif
  • Gradually, the term "Gothic" got fallen into disuse in the West (probably because it is ambiguous, not because it is "incorrect")
  • However, in the Far East (especially Japan) the name is still being used
  • As a result, lots of people in the west does not know that they invented the name "Gothic" themselves, thinking that the term originated in Japan (they first encounter the term "gothic" when they see Japanese font names on their computer…)
The fact is, "gothic" meaning "sans serif" had never been a Japanese thing. I just cited a Chinese book on the talk page of Japanese gothic typeface, and if I try very hard I should be able to prove once and for all that "Gothic" is a Western term. But unfortunately all the new books are useless and old books are hard to find.
Even currently practising typographers sometimes have incorrect information (by which I actually had to prove to some typographer working on an article that "gothic" was invented in the West, not in Japan), probably because the term had fallen into disuse for too long, people forgot what their old books say. And the software companies have too much power nowadays.
This is, IMHO, a sad state of affairs. The name "Gothic" is not "wrong" per say; it has fallen into disuse, but you can't say it's wrong when you still have fonts with the word "Gothic" which are just sans serif.
As I say, don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I can't imagine how I can be optimistic if I can't even get such small things corrected.—Gniw (Wing) 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xyz (disambiguation)

Please do not try to disambiguate links to "Xyz (disambiguation)" type redirects to disambuguation pages. They are there for a reason, that is to prevent false disambiguation. See: Serif and Gothic (disambiguation) -- Petri Krohn 08:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could revert your edits, if you deleted any more of these. -- Petri Krohn 08:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) -- Petri Krohn 07:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digging through deleted pages

Nish was originally a redirect to Nis (later Niš) that was hijacked by a comedian for a personal article, and then deleted as an advertisement/vanity page; I've re-created it as a redirect to Niš.

Horon...man, what a mess. Anyway: Everything now in the Horon section of the Hora article was also in the deleted Horon article, so it was probably copied over, as you suspected.

And it looks like it's still a copyright problem; the paragraph beginning "Authentic Pontic dance is characterized by small, quick, precise steps..." was on this page as far back as 1999, according to the Internet Archive.

Looking at formatting of the older versions, the "Types of horon" list was obviously cut and pasted from the chart at [3] (weird tabs and spacing, etc.), so that should probably be removed too.

If you need any more help, just let me know. —tregoweth (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Hi Bbik ! Too may infoboxes and very little text firstly is a bad idea. Usually infoboxes bring along predefined space/location parameters and the text around them has to adjust itself. So here I would advise to expand the article and the infoboxes would behave the way you want. Happy editing, STTW (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golubac fortress

Unfortunatelly that page isn't in Romanian. I suspect is in Hungarian.MihaiC 08:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbik&oldid=114758759"