Hello there Nikola Smolenski, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. MB 13:45 20 May 2003 (UTC)
Hi, Nikola nice work on Stefan Dušan Silni and other topics. Some month ago I wondered how is that that Dušan was the only Serb tzar. Now I know. Is "silni" in lowercase? I guess not. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 23:04 29 May 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help on it :) I'm planning to add much more (not right now - I'm going on vacation) so watch for it. In Serbian, titles are in lowercase, I'm not sure for English.
Regarding List of fictional species... I think that you may want to just take a look at mythical beast. It seems to have, in greater detail, what you have in mind. --Dante Alighieri 09:51 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! Wow, what a great article on Stefan Dusan: that's a top quality contribution, and you have got the right idea about style and NPOV.
Can you clarify a bit about the copyright jurisdiction, and local rules on copyright, for our benefit, so people can check that there are no hiccups regarding U.S. law vs. local law, and that the material is truly in the public domain in the U.S? The Anome 22:15 29 May 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks you very much on your praise :) but I haven't written it, only translated it. What do you think about Karadjordje and other articles on Serb rulers I posted?
- As for copyright, do not worry, Project Rastko is digitizing Sveznanje as we speak... Nikola 11:31 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I started redoing all of the links to tzar to tsar, on the premise that the former spelling is incorrect, but then I realized that since all of them had to do with Serbia, and many of them were put there by someone with an ostensibly Serbian name (you), maybe the tzar spelling is appropriate for Serbia. Talk:Tsar seems to indicate that it is not, but I want to make sure. -Smack 22:38 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- If the person being mentioned in the Russian tsar, then it should be tsar, not czar. On english wiki is the spelling to be used is the one used by english speakers, and that is tsar. Czar is now rarely used in english and generally replaced if found. FearÉIREANN 22:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. Russian and Serbian 'tsar' are one same word, I just thought that its correct spelling is 'tzar'. I feel that 'tzar' is spelling closer to original (for both languages) but if 'tsar' is practice, so be it. By the way, in Serbian latin script spelling is 'car', just to add to the confusion :) Nikola 23:11 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- On second thought, "tz" is indeed a pretty close transliteration, but it's simply impronounceable. (And I am aware that the Poles pronounce c as ts, though I didn't know that the Serbs do too... or that they even have a Latin script of their own... interesting.)
- Actually, it's Croatian latin script but it is used in Serbian language :) In Serbian, 'c' is pronounced as SAMPA c. Nikola 05:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- And I wouldn't say that czar is rarely used in English. Here in California, it's rampant - at least in speech. -Smack 23:30 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- tz is simply not unpronouncable. I can pronounce it quite well, and I'm a native speaker of English. But, in fairness, I did minor in Linguistics. Czar is used regularly in English in the phrase/title "Drug Czar" which, despite what you might imagine it means, is the top U.S. official opposing drugs in the War on Drugs. --Dante Alighieri 03:12 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Now, how do you both know what's pronouncable and what isn't when English doesn't have strict ortography? Regardles of how the word is written, tsar, tzar or czar, it should be pronounced the same as all versions are transliterations of same foreign word ;) I added SAMPA pronounciation to tsar. Nikola 05:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Prishtina. If you want to add Serbian viewpoint, how about you note it as such. Even the article you provided (which might be viewed as biased seeing as it is hosted on the Serbian government website), did not say that all displaced were Serbs and non-Albanians. This hardly counts as "Everywhere" like you said. I am not going into an edit war. If you want to change the article to match *your* views then go ahead. But I suggest you at least try and keep the appearance of NPOV. Dori 03:35 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
You seem to have confused Paracin and Pancevo.
- Thanks, whoever :) Nikola 07:26, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
But does the Republic of Yugoslavia still exist, as claimed by the current format? --Jiang 09:12, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- No country of such name ever existed. It is not official name. Neither Kingdom of Yugoslavia nor Socialist Yugoslavia ever existed, too. Nikola 09:40, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Those headings are misleading. They imply those entities existed. We should just leave them out. Republic of Yugoslavia is a self redirect. --Jiang 18:47, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- No, no, no, no, no. Those entities existed, but each of them had several names through its history. There is no need to make separate articles about f.e. Kingdom of SCS and Kingdom of Yugoslavia. (BTW, I made a mistake up there, Kingdom of Yugoslavia existed (but Socialist Yugoslavia did not)). Perhaps it would be the best to remake the introduction similar to previous, but using neutral terms (First Yugoslavia, Second Yugoslavia, Third Yugoslavia for example; they are oftenly called so here, I'm not sure for English speaking world). What is there now might be less confusing but does not explain relations of Yugoslavias nor asserts that they are continuous political entity (some of them being more continuous then other...) Nikola 21:34, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- But arent these eras? Or are they the same political entites with just a name change. If it is the latter, then yes, they should be kept in a single article. Let's discuss this on Talk:Yugoslavia so others can participate too. --Jiang 21:39, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Oh God no :( If we discuss it there the discussion will never end. Let's first finish the discussion here then if someone doesn't like it he can raise the question. I don't know what you mean by eras. There are three separate entities but that are continuous to each other, while each of those entities had some "just name changes". It's probably the best that there is one article for each of them and redirects from various names to main article (articles should be titled as their most known name, which is at the same time their last name, which is fine). And on page Yugoslavia we might use phrases as Nth Yugoslavia or something like One that was kingdom and so on. Nikola 21:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Take a look at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22first+yugoslavia%22 . I think that the phrase is well established and that it could be used, while it shouldn't mislead anyone. Nikola 22:30, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If you could, please leave new comments at the very bottom, so I won't miss them. (I almost did.) I'll comment on the Yugoslavia article at Talk:Yugoslavia in a short while. As for why I'm changing FYROM to Republic of Macedonia, that's because ROM is the official name of the country, and "Former Yugoslavia" is just added because Greece wants it to be there. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia. We should go by what the country wants to call itself, not what others want to call it. The Macedonia links I changed were referring to the modern day country and not the entire region of Macedonia. I hope this helps. --Jiang 21:44, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)