Hi, I have been looking at various bridge articles and I have a suggested merge (you just knew I was going to say that I'm sure). List of defenses to 1NT contains links to a few articles all of which are extremely short. I propose that we merge them into one meaningful article called "Defence to 1NT". Naturally if any of these sections (as they would now become) was to be expanded sufficiently to make a worthwhile article we could demerge at a later stage. It seems to me that this would have the benefit of enabling readers to access all methods more easily and make it simpler to compare methods. Nothing would be lost indeed much would be gained. What do you think?Abtract23:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
As usual, :-), I'm opposed. While I do agree with every word you say, I see it as matter of principle (not the principle of disagreeing with everything Abtract proposes :-), but the principle that we should have one article per convention no matter how long it is, i.e. not to decide on merge/split on case-by-case basis). Most of those articles are currently stubs, and should be expanded mostly about up to one screen; they don't dwelve into latter development, counter-defense, examples etc. We do lack an overview of conventions though—but I'd prefer to tackle the matter in the following manner instead:
Write a "classification" heading in Bridge convention, classifying conventions by their purpose.
If the heading becomes overlong (and it probably will as soon as it's written seriously), we can detach it from Bridge convention and do one of:
I agree that the current article List of defenses to 1NT is not useful. Maybe we could have a List of bridge conventions instead. Note that there are many various "List of foo" articles on Wikipedia, but they serve only an auxiliary purpose (as reference lists), and often duplicate the role of categories.
Yes, the extensive discussion at this talk page, and the links to meta. Basically any system that requires you to have bibliographic information in the middle of text is unworkable. As a matter of interest, where is it official? - FrancisTyers10:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I thought you were right here, because it seemed that you and Lunt were describing the situation in my native Bulgarian pretty exactly. However, upon reading
this grammar (1.2.2, 1.2.2.6), it seems that /ł/ and /l/ have indeed become separate phonemes in Macedonian (and not allophones as in Bulgarian). The reason is that the palatal ʎ or palatalized /lj/ as in "belja" (trouble) has, in most cases, become a mere nonvelarized /bela/, contrasted with the the old /bela/ (white), where the allophonic velarization, therefore, has become phonemic (/beła/). According to our source, many Macedonians still keep the old (Bulgarian) system, in part or fully, but - obviously Lunt and Friedman did have a reason to analyse it in the other way. --85.187.44.13122:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Although I must say that I, personally, can hardly believe that this "new" system is very common. I don't notice it when listening to Macedonian radio, in any case. But of course, taking into account one's own observations would be OR. --85.187.44.13114:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read Friedman, and I stand utterly and thoroughly confused. Any continuation of this discussion would severely damage my brain health (already undermined by too much wikiholism) $-). Duja11:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. But don't be surprised if I eventually put this rubbish on the page. :) It's not that I believe a word of it :), but it is my (only) source, and I've got nothing else to fall back on ... --85.187.44.13118:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'm close to give up to understand what Friedman wanted to say about the issue. However, there's an apparent controversy even in his text, which was carried on to the article -- in Friedman's table ł is described as a dental consonant while in the very following paragraph he talks about velar one. Duja 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think he means "velarized". Calling the velarized alvolar /l/ "velar /l/" seems to be a common mistake, which also Lunt makes (and which I used to make when I was young and silly :)). I guess the reason is that (according to a Bulgarian phonetics book I just read) nobody knew that a really velar /l/ could exist until it was discovered, quite recently, in exotic languages like Melpa. The real velar /l/ is transcribed as ʟ, while the velarized /l/ is ł.
As for what Friedman means with the rest - well, I already proposed an interpretation here, as well as, more briefly, in Macedonian language. So I think I understand what he means, although, as I said, I don't really believe him. :) --85.187.44.13116:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. But - re-reading what you wrote - I didn't carry on that contradction on to the article, 'cuz my contribution don't say nothing 'bout no "velar" /l/.--85.187.44.13116:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, velarized or velar regardless (maybe even I used those terms sloppily), /ł/ is not dental as it stands in Friedman and Macedonian language. Trying to find out some sense in this mess: we basically agreed that Serbian and Bulgarian L's in e.g. Galileji differ, but I maintain that Serbian one is not velarized; my theory is that one is apical and the other is laminal. I believe that Macedonian dialects vary between Bulgarian and Serbian pronunciations (with additional funny rules about pronunciation of letter lj (sorry, no Cyrillic keyboard on this computer)). Unfortunately, it seems that all we have about Macedonian phonology is Friedman. Duja17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. About Macedonian: Yes, Friedman is all we have. And Lunt (1952), of course (we have him at the library of the Universuty of Sofia), but, judging from his phonetics section, he makes Friedman seem brilliant. As far as dental vs alveolar is concerned: assuming that a velarized dental (rather than alveolar) /l/ does exist, I suppose that people would tend to use the same good old /ł/ in broad transcription, even though apparently [ɫ̪] would be the most exact transcription, phonetically. Now, the same mess seems to exist with the Albanian /l/s - even though the actual Albanian language article says that both the velarized and the nonvelarized Albanian /l/s are alveolar, somebody else has obviosly analyzed it in the same way as Friedman in Macedonian - see Kwami's edit in dental consonant. It says that the Albanian "clear" (nonvelarized) /l/ is alveolar, but the Albanian "dark", velarized /ł/ is dental. Similarly, the Bulgarian "dark" [l] (which isn't universally analysed as velarized) is articulated, not dentally, but at least somewhere lower on the alveoles than the Bulgarian "clear" [l].
My "practical" measure of velarized /l/ is as follows: can I instead pronounce /w/ (yes, like English w) and get an acceptable result (i.e. the one where my converser wouldn't say "huh?")? I clearly can in words like English ball, Bulgarian видел or Serbian strelci. IOW, you barely have to have any contact of tongue and alveolar ridge to pronounce it. In front of /u/, and especially between them, Serbian /l/ may also be velarized: bulumenta. But we don't generally distinguish L's between front and back vowels: in both Galileji and Lola it is articulated only with tip of the tongue touching the alveolar ridge, and bottom of the tongue below the tip in a strong contact with front teeth, and no palatal touch at all. It is not velar, though, as the back of the tongue remains low. When I try to pronounce the Bulgarian "clear" /l/, I discover that there's practically no contact with the teeth—the tongue tip and blade are in contact with alveolar ridge and front palata.
Sounds convincing. By the way, Bulgarian dark /l/ does tend to become [w] in the speech of young people, not only before consonants and word-finally (although it's most frequent there, I'd say because articulation gets especially lax there). So, personally, I'd usually say Vwadimir [my name] instead of Vladimir, Wowa instead of Lola, etc.. Curiosuly, this gives me a foreign accent in Russian, because Russians don't vocalize the /l/s, although their nonpalatalized /l/ is velarized, too (clearly indicated in the Russian language wiki article). Never mind, this was a digression. --85.187.44.13114:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for Albanian: FWIW, when Serbs imitate Albanians, they always replace all /l/'s with љ's (/ʎ/). This is often done in transcription, e.g. frequent surname Shala is transcribed as Шаља. While the phonology does not support that amount of palatalization, it seems that's the same sound as Bulgarian "clear" L— what I hear in Bulgarian pronunciation of Galileji would be more accurate transliterated to Serbian as Гаљиљеји than Галилеји. That would also explain the reverse position, i.e. that you hear Serbian /l/ as darker (IMO incorrectly described as velarized) than you'd expect. Duja
Very interesting! As you mentioned, the Albanian /l/ isn't supposed to be palatalized at all, and if you compare the Albanian and the Serbo-Croatian language articles, the sounds are supposed to be identical - alveolar laterals. So what can the difference be? Either the laminal vs apical difference that you suggested, or - I'm not quite excluding it yet - the velarized vs nonvelarized contrast that I suggested. Now, there's a parallel case, namely French and Russian. The French /l/ isn't palatalized either; however, when Russians want to imitate or transcribe French alveolar /l/, they often write ль, ля, лю (ля-ля-ля for French la-la-la, де Голь for French De Gaulle). The reason is that they can only choose between their velarized (dark) /ł/ and their palatalized /lj, since a clear nonpalatalized /l/ doesn't exist in Russian. Obviously, a clear /l/ sounds palatalized to velarizers :). Do French, German, Spanish /l/ sound more like Albanian or more like Serbian to you? --85.187.44.13114:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About Serbian: it seems that you're right, at least according to some scholarly sources. At least one Bulgarian grammar of Serbo-Croatian says that the /l/ is clear, unlike the Bulgarian one! Similarly, some other scholar has analysed the Czech /l/ as clear. For me, that's quite puzzling. But, while I insist that Serbian (and Czech) "le" and "li" sound "darker" than expected to me, I admit that Serbian "la", "lo" and "lu" sometimes sound "clearer" than expected. It's a mystery. Anyway, couldn't we compare your /l/ with the English ones? Is it more like English clear [l] (as in leap, left) or more like English dark [l] (as in ball and American lion), and which one, if any, poses difficulties for Serbo-Croatian learners?
I'd say that it's the "dark" L that poses difficulties -- it's not a difficult sound to produce but I'd say that majority of Serbo-Croatian learners of English would replace it with a front L.~~
OK. I would be interested to hear how that sounds, but in fact, if your interpretation about laminal/apical is correct and I am confusing apicalness with velarizedness, then I guess I would find it difficult to notice their deviation from standard English even if I heard them. What about Russian? Or perhaps it isn't spoken by so many Serbs anyway (since you weren't in the Warsaw pact), so you haven't been able to make observations? --85.187.44.13114:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning your theory - am I right to assume that, if Serbo-Croatian /l/ is alveolar and apical, it's identical to English /l/, while Bulgarian alvolar and laminal /l/ is like French /l/?
Yes, I think so. I don't hear any difference between English leak and Serbian lik (image) . I speak some French but not quite well, although I could imagine that French liaison or léon sounds alike Bulgarian "clear" l.Duja09:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from my user page:
Rehi; well, we discussed about the issue on 3 different places... but nevertheless...
...my final conclusion (after some research which included looking at myself in the mirror :-) ): Serbian (pre-consonant) l is dental while Bulgarian is alveolar. By "dental" I mean that the tip of the tongue sticks out of the front teeth, with firm contact to upper teeth and loose contact with lower teeth. Bulgarian is purely alveolar, i.e. the contact is right above the upper teeth.
Now, Wikipedia does not have article dental lateral approximant, but only alveolar lateral approximant. Quote, "The symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet that represents dental, alveolar, and postalveolar lateral approximants is l, and the equivalent X-SAMPA symbol is l." Obviously, the difference is not phonemic in any language...
...except maybe in Macedonian? (I still can't get through the mess of Friedman's explanation). Duja 14:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Your interpretation does sound convincing. Velarized laterals apparently tend to be dental, as in Albanian (and Macedonian?), or at least to be lower in the alveolar-dental continuum, as in Bulgarian. Ergo, a Bulgarian like me might be inclined to identify the two and believe to be hearing a velarized L each time he hears a dental one (e.g. in Serbian). Still, the Serbo-Croatian/Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian wiki pages say that the /l/s are alveolar. So it would be great if we had some sources about it. Living in Serbia, maybe you have access to proper literature about the language, where passive and active articulatory organs are specified?
As for Friedman, he seems to be saying the two Macedonian laterals are supposed to be contrasted both as velarized vs nonvelarized and as dental vs alveolar. He doesn't say which the primary difference is, but the fact that he is using a /ł/ sign suggests that he thinks velarization is primary. --85.187.44.131 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Ovo mi malo postaje sve sumnjivije - mislim, genocid u Srebrenici se spominje u wikipedijskom clanku Man. Znam da je tipican primjer - ali mislim da je POV. --HolyRomanEmperor20:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zastava 2
Evo sada je aktuelno pitanje zastave i cini mi se da boje na Wikipedii odgovaraju samo onima sa sajta Parlamenta a da su u realnosti i na sajtu Vlade drugacije.
No problem—judging on time stamps, we likely both changed the page in a very short interval, (but avoided the edit conflict). Duja12:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Screw the tags :), I will no longer be on wikipedia. Good to hear? Looks like the serbians won in the end, congratulations. :) Damir Mišić
It would certainly be hypocritical if I'd say that I'm not happy about that... I don't feel like "winning" anything though. Good luck and take care. Duja12:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ne želim ikomu soliti pamet, no: 1) ovo bi trebala biti online enciklopedija, a ne sredstvo propagande za bilo što 2) naravno, nemoguće je (i nepoželjno) izbjeći subjektivnost-no, dosadan bi bio svijet u kojem bi se svi slagali 3) uza sve rečeno, postoje granice koje nameću razum, logika, dostupne informacije. Priđe li se svemu jedino kao promičbenomu mediju-onda je uistinu bolje otići nego gubiti živce u jalovom natezanju. Korisnik Mišić bi bio korisniji "vlastitoj nacionalnoj stvari" kada bi pokušao zastupati svoja stajališta s dozom tolerancije, s dobrom količinom zdravoga razuma i, najviše, slobode duha. Čujmo i njegovu stranu-ali ne kao monotonu litaniju koja ignorira druge i gluha je na argumente racionalnoga uma. Nije ovo mjesto u kojem itko treba "dobiti" ili "izgubiti". Dobiti može jedino istina, rasvijetljena iz više kutova. Naravno, službeni je stav wikipedije da ih ne zanima "istina". No, to je, znamo, samo površna fraza. Mir Harven20:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bosniak page move
Hi Duja. Could you please go here and write what you think about moving the page "Bosniaks" to "Bosniak people". Most other articles about ethnic groups follow that convention so I feel like it'd be a good move to make. Live Forever18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Molise Croats/Slavs
I've changed my mind about the disussion there, but I don't want to engage in it right now, because people are really too emotional there, and I suppose you must have a reason to defend the current title. But do you have any actual sources proving that the overwhelming majority of Ikavian speakers in Molise identify as Croats? The info that I've seen so far suggests that they are still rather confused themselves. The article itself says that "Molise Croats identify themselves as Italians", that at least some of them prefer to call their language "na-našo" and themselves Zlavi. This article by prominent specialist Walter Breu says, roughly, that one village is more pro-Croatian and the other one rather reserved (Insgesamt hat Montemitro das konservativste Sprachverhalten; hier findet sich auch eine relativ grosse Akzeptanz der von kroatischer Seite propagierten Zugehoerigkeit der Moliseslawen zum Kroatentum, waehrend man in Acquaviva solchem Gedankengut ziemlich reserviert gegenebersteht). So, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that by choosing "Molise Croatian" instead of "Molise SLavic", we're excluding those (maybe a minority) who don't identify as Croats. If we choose "Molise Slavic", then we aren't excluding those who identify as Croats, because Croats are clearly Slavs. So - what do you think? --85.187.44.13116:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not passionate about the subject; there are quite reasonable arguments on both sides. However, I (think I) watched the article far longer than you and witnessed a sad edit/move war about a subject which really does not deserve so much hussle. If I appear pissed off, that's because of large abuse of process on both sides before; re-raising the issue just provokes further mud-slinging. Molise Croatian or Slavic, whatever, there are better things to do. Duja06:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. In fact, I agree; as for the population's identity, on second thoughts, I'm not sure which source to believe, so I don't feel like messing with the issue. --85.187.44.13111:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mix the dialect features with the declaring of the nationality. Put it this way: how many Gypsies, e.g. in Serbia, declare themselves as Gypsies? They mostly declare themselves as Serbs, Muslims, Bosniaks, Romanians, Egyptians, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Hungarians.
Or even among many Jews all over the world (although judaism tells them not to deny that they are Jews). I believe that Duja'll confirm you this.
It is often the case that some very small minorities declare themselves nationally as majority people - the reasons are various: safety (in certain times certain minorities aren't very popular, to be mild), better job opportunities, assimilation (although that doesn't always mean that they've forgot what they are - they tell one story to outer world, the other story is what they keep among themselves).
How many "Croats" and "Serbs" emerged after Hungarian rule in Vojvodina was replaced by Kingdom of SHS?
Now, let's get to Molise Croat case. "Misini"s (neofascist party, MSI) were on the rise in 1990's, they even got in the government. All those "esul"-stories, dramatizations, anti-Slav attitude, irredentist claims and other stuff came up on the surface. The fall of eastern block encouraged the irredentists. Do you really think that it was a smart idea to declare yourself as Croat at that time? It's just a bloody statistic, play dumb and live your life (napravi se lud i živiš život u miru, zar ćeš izgubit glavu zbog statistike i nečijeg znan. rada?). Kubura19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean and I think the same situation is present in the Slavic speaking areas of Greece, where people have tended to call themselves Greeks or simply locals to avoid trouble or social stigmatising (being a minority is usually neither prestigous nor profitable, even if there are no fascist parties). The problem is that the boundary between declaring or renouncing a national/ethnic/religious identity and actually acquiring (ceasing to have) that identity is very indistinct. Eventually, the one becomes the other. If you speak a Slavic language, but you want to call yourself Greek/Italian or something third, then you are a (Slavic-speaking) Greek/Italian or something third, and nobody has the right to force you to identify as something else. In the same way, Scanians were Danes, but are now Swedes (due to forceful assimilation), and the Bretons generally identify as French, though their language and origin is quite different. Identities, quite real ones, often arise and change in this way or in other "strange" ways (Americans /for political & economical reasons/ Australians /mostly geographical, I guess/ Swiss, etc.) We can't call those people this or that and presume that we know more about their supposed "true" identity than they do (or wish to say). --85.187.44.13120:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mape
Zamolio bih te da ubuduće ne menjaš moje mape. Ja bih tu mapu promenio sam i bilo koju drugu koju sam uradio. Ne vidim razlog za ovakvu nestrpljivost pa da se mapa prepravi u roku od 24 časa. PANONIAN(talk)10:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, pa ovako kako si ti obojio sam mogao i ja za 10 minuta. Međutim, ako uporediš tvoju verziju mape sa prethodnom primetićeš razliku kod prelaza iz jednog obojenog polja u drugo. Treba malo više rada i vremena da se taj efekat postigne. PANONIAN(talk)10:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Istorijski gledano sva ta mesta su deo Mačve. Istorijska Mačvanska banovina je obuhvatala sva ta mesta kao i veći deo današnjeg kolubarskog okruga. Prema tome, nema razloga da ne smatramo da ova mesta pripadaju Mačvi. PANONIAN(talk)10:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
E, ali primetićeš malu razliku između Mačve i Baranje. Baranja je nekada bila u Vojvodini ali sada nije, dok su ova mesta pripadala istorijskoj Mačvanskoj banovini, a i danas su deo Mačvanskog okruga. Mislim da sve što se nalazi u Mačvanskom okrugu možemo smatrati delom Mačve. Treba pogledati doduše kako su to definisali na http://www.macva.com/ ali sajt trenutno nije dostupan, pa treba pogledati malo kasnije. PANONIAN(talk)10:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inače našao sam na netu 2 mape Mačve: http://galeb.etf.bg.ac.yu/~pajcilo/pomocni/macva2.jpghttp://www.bogatic.co.yu/slike/mapa1.jpg U pravu si dakle što se tih granica tiče. Pazi ovako: stvarno ne znam šta je bolje da uradimo. Možemo sva ta mesta ostaviti u kategoriji Mačva, jer kao što sam rekao bila su nekada deo Mačve a i sada su deo Mačvanskog okruga, a možemo se ograničiti i na usku geografsku definiciju Mačve. Jedino mislim da ne bi trebalo promeniti ime kategorije u "Mačva District", jer mi je osnovna ideja bila da napravim kategoriju regiona a ne okruga (što ne znači da ne mogu da postoje obe). Ako baš hoćeš, izbaci iz kategorije Mačva ona mesta za koja smatraš da ne spadaju tu (mada mislim da baš i ne moraš to da uradiš, ali odluči sam, svejedno mi je). PANONIAN(talk)11:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evo, napravio sam novu kategoriju "Mačva District" i sva ta mesta sam prebacio tamo, dok je "Mačva District" sada podkategorija kategorije "Mačva". Može se reći da sada ta mesta i jesu i nisu u kategoriji "Mačva". :) PANONIAN(talk)01:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
U redu, ali imam predlog u vezi toga, mislim da bi mesta koja su sedišta opština trebalo ostaviti u kategoriji Srbija, a izbaciti samo manja mesta. Slažeš li se sa tim? PANONIAN(talk)11:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pa ne znam otkud ti ideja da članak o nekom selu ne može biti istovremeno u kategorijama "Serbia", "Vojvodina" i "Syrmia". Ako se selo nalazi na svim tim teritorijama, zašto ne bi moglo biti i u svim kategorijama? Članci se izbacuju iz glavne kategorije jedino ako je ona pretrpana, pa da bi je malo olakšali. Inače slažem se da je kategorija "Cities, towns and villages in Serbia" pretrpana, ali kao što rekoh mislim da bismo iz nje trebali izbaciti samo ona vojvođanska mesta koja nisu opštinska središta (time bi u kategoriji Srbija ostalo 46 članaka o vojvođanskim mestima, što nije preteran broj). Poenta je da bi bilo glupo da iz kategorije Srbija izbacimo velike gradove kao što su Novi Sad, Subotica, Zrenjanin, itd. Što se tiče toga kako su to drugi uradili, ne postoji neki određen model. Pogledaj na primer Mađare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cities%2C_towns_and_villages_in_Hungary Oni su sva mesta ubacili u glavnu kategoriju, ali pored glavne su ih ubacili još u kategoriju županije gde se to mesto nalazi. Na primer mesto Békés se nalazi u glavnoj kategoriji "Cities, towns and villages in Hungary" ali i u njenoj podkategoriji "Cities, towns and villages in Békés county". Problem je što ti suviše bukvalno shvataš ovaj sistem podkategorija. Podkategorije vezane za geografska područja nisu isto što i podkategorije vezane za određene oblasti, kao što su sport, kultura, ekonomija, itd. Inače, nema svrhe gledati kako je urađeno za "kulturne" zemlje, jer u njihovim člancima čovek ne može da nađe jednostavan podatak o tome koliko u Baskiji ima Baskijaca, da ne pominjemo šta drugo. PANONIAN(talk)12:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pa slažem se sa tobom recimo za kategoriju "Rivers of Serbia", ali što se tiče kategorija vezanih za lokaciju, jedno selo u opštini Novi Sad po meni treba da bude u svim ovim kategorijama: "Mesta u Srbiji", "Mesta u Vojvodini", "Bačka" (ili "Srem") i "Novi Sad". PANONIAN(talk)01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To i ja tvrdim - no xelim da ostane samo na Stjepanu I i Stepanu II srpska i hrvatska, jer je tada Bosna bila srpski, odnosno hrvatski vazal. Emir Arven se tome protivi - i ne prihvata nista drugo no Historiju Bosnjaka (istinu i nista drugo, kako on kaze). --HolyRomanEmperor13:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A i "Srpska Istorija" bi mogla da stoji i na kraljevima Kotromanicima (uz odgovarajucu "Hrvatsku istoriju"), odnoseci se na odgovarajuce vremenske periode i njihove titule i oblasti nad kojima su vladali. Dakle nista etnicki... --HolyRomanEmperor14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tacke i zarezi
Ja ne mijenjam tacke u zareze zbog tacaka i zareza, vec zbog netacnih procenata u clancima o crnogorskim gradovima. Zarez mi je refleks, ne radim to namjerno. Ko god stavlja podatke o nacionalnoj pripadnosti u opstinama - nema tacne rezultate popisa. Provjeri na www.monstat.cg.yu Nije bitno...14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vjerujes li da ja to nisam ni primijetio...gledam samo da sredim ove strane o CG-opstinama, da izgledaju kolko-tolko uniformno, pa mi se provuce da stavim zarez dje je bila tacka...
Re:
I know, I have to change it. Only thing is that I can't include Signatures. Damn Wikipedia, why cna't we use pics in our sigs anyway? Crna Gora06:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Duja. That was considerate, and exemplifies the reasons that I much prefer what I think of as moderated forums to the anything-goes NGs. Xlmvp14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duja, I still have a quibble with the Bidding Systems article, although your recent edits have cleaned it up significantly. The issue is the clause, which has been there for a while, "A bidding system defines the meaning of every possible bid by each partner ..." I have had a couple of partnerships in which many, many sequences were closely defined, but I can't recall ever having had an agreement on, for example, 1D - 1NT; 2C - 3S. At gunpoint, I'd guess a splinter for clubs, but partner and I would have words after the session.
I would guess that you have no special quarrel with "every possible bid," because you didn't alter it. Still, I'd like to see some softening there. Even something that dodges the issue, such as "A bidding system defines the meaning of bids made by the partnership ..." Xlmvp18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I can't monitor every line in every article. I wrote the intro originally, then someone rewrote it, then I softened those statements a bit. Feel free to edit it. However...
Is there a semantic difference between "every possible bid" and "every bid possible"? (I'm asking). Your counter-example could be reconciled with the statement as "...3S bid is not possible, therefore it is not defined by the system". (Though it's sort of circular). Yes, we need a better definition; I'm not sure which. "...every plausible bid?". "...every plausible (sequence of) bid(s)"? Duja06:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might have some stewardship on that article, so I decided to check. I'll edit if I lose any more sleep over it. BTW, I found a good "perfect safety play" example and put it, along with discussion, on the Discussion page of Safety Play. So if you want to break the Belladonna coup out separately, there's a replacement hand.Xlmvp03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the WP:OWN policy; while we're all certainly emotionally tied to articles we started or significantly contributed to, no one is supposed to "own" the Wikipedia articles. So, some stewardship is certainly welcome, as the article would have someone to care about it, but not overly. You're certainly more than welcome to edit both Safety play and start Belladonna coup; after all, those are your contributions; it wouldn't be fair for me to do the copy/paste move. Be bold.Duja14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should ask about "every possible bid" and "every bid possible." In fact, I wonder if you're pulling my leg. I seem to recall that S.J. Simon discussed the distinction between "best possible result" and "best result possible" in Why You Lose At Bridge. My copy grew legs a while back so I can't check, but I'd swear that's where I read it first. My sense is that there is a distinction: that "best possible bid" is the best bid that can be found in an unrestricted universe of legal bids, and "best bid possible" implies that constraints exist, restricting the choice of bid. If that's so, it's clearly due to the position of "possible," but I have no idea why that would be so. Xlmvp03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was legitimately asking. I knew that there's some kind of semantic difference along those lines, but I'm not sure whether even most native speakers would immediately recognize it. Maybe I'll ask on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language... Duja14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
Yeah, I did reveal to Wikipedia a lot about myself (personal name/information). Just not to you. My name is not even near that. I'm not an assistent of a mad genius with a large hump on my back. :0) --HRE08:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jugoslave, you reverted all of my edits concerning the Serbia stub templates, and wrote Nah. Sorry, but the image looks awful in small scale. This is your opinion, and I'd like for you to take into consideration my hard work and time spent on making this image you so casually removed. To me, the image does not look bad, even in small scale. Nevertheless, I have always been a man of compromise, and suggest that we at least leave the immage in the Serbia-geo-stub template, how does that sound? Just so that my hard work wasn't for nothing :) --GOD OF JUSTICE07:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have removed the WPCB userbox, as I can't see how that particular person (a politician) is related in any way to Bridge.
Feel free to contact me by clicking here, and selecting Message on Wikipedia. Thanks, --Deon555|talk09:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm well I didn't see the Category, You can put him back in if you want ;)
Alcatraz
Hi Duja, just wanted you to know that I was responding to your comments about my edit of Alcatraz at the same time you were making them. My most recent response has been posted. Regards, Xlmvp15:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought that stuff was there for a long time and kind of agreed upon (didn't feel like checking entire history). Vacation makes wonders :-). Duja14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia national football team
Јеси ли скоро гледао чланак око којег смо се недавно сукобили? Као што можеш видети, чланак је потпуно раз*ебан, укључујући записе са СП и ЕП у инфо-боксу, као и тврдњу да је тим наследник СРЈ и СЦГ, али не и СФРЈ. Тип који је ово променио тврди да остале републике "равноправно деле" историју југо-тима :о) Искрено, и није ми баш много стало па се нећу са тим више акати, али се то наравно дешава кад им даш прст... Да ниси променио мишљење како чланак треба да изгледа? --D111114:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ne baš aktivno, bio sam na odmoru u avgustu a log istorije je prilično duuuugačak u tom periodu. User:Lowg je dobrim delom preuzeo njegovo održavanje, a pošto je onomad bio prilično neutralan u našem sukobu, nisam osetio potrebu da se petljam. Možda je najbolje da se obratiš njemu. Duja14:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kurir are most selled daily newpaper in whole Serbia.b92 is foreign Soros inveted media thats one and sole purpose is destroying Serbian heritage.How can you even compare those two?
Should I start with mentioning how many affairs Kurir discovered? Voting from Solun by Neda Arneric and other DS member,then Janjusevic and Kolesar,then Marija Raseta,then Cedas wiretyped conversations with criminals,and so on and so on.Kurir is most selled newspaper in Serbia and its very reliable,much more then b92,witch is not even Serbian,for it is croatian
I noticed, as it resulted in a false "you got new message" due to a change on my talk page :-). Well, I think I was dense enough on Talk:IPA (disambiguation), so let the things settle one way or another. Thanks anyway—at least, you proved that you practice what you preach. (While I still think that you could spend the energy on something more useful, though). Duja07:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for taking care of the Chalki desaster. The aftermath now is we seem to be having quite a few wrong links from articles all over the place - linking to Chalki when they really mean the theological school on Heybeliada. (Probably most of them were wrong before, anyway.) I've started cleaning up a few. Fut.Perf.☼19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Category:Politics of Kosovo (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot407:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I fixed it. Now, tell me, wouldn't it be nice if you had a sysop flag? Then you could do things like this one yourself ;-) C'mooon, let us make you an admin, I know I sound like HRE, but man you really deserve it... :-) Please? --Dijxtra08:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeaaaaaah :-) OK, let's do this the right way. Check out the questions for candidates (you can see those here) and take your time answering those (make sure your answers are lengthy and persuasive enough). I'm not going to open an RfA yet since I have to go partying now (a bunch of friends have a graduation ceremony in less than an hour) and I have to write a decent lead which will make it clear that you are one of those "thought that you are an admin already" guys. So, expect your RfA around Sunday. I really look forward to this one :-) --Dijxtra09:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dijxtra would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Dijxtra to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Duja. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Well, <having restrained myself from a big list of swearwords> thanks. I'll fill in the bits on Monday, I don't have much time currently.
Hello. Congratulations for your RfA, it appears to be going very well. I paid a little visit to your user page. I hope that you don't mind me, but may I suggest that you include some Babel userboxes to it? I believe that it's always useful to inform other users of the languages that you can speak. Best regards.--Húsönd23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because my user page was an (apparently unsuccessful) attempt at minimalism... which I already broke by including the WikiProject userboxes. I'll reconsider, thanks for the suggestion. Duja06:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:))))
Nisam baš Bosanac, Bačvan i Sremac sam - mešano, ali nisam uopšte obratio pažnju da me zoveš komšija. E sad, a ne samo da živiš u NS, već i na Novom Naselju. :)) Bar ne živimo u istoj ulici. hehehe PANONIAN(talk)13:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if you find yourself offended (and I'll delete it), but... it was just a to-be-taken-lightly joke that I couldn't resist. Am I missing something? Duja15:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nm; keep it. It's just a rather sensitive issue. I stayed at Majka i dete Institute - did you ever hear of it? I'm going to be institutionalized some time soon again (two months waiting for the magnetic resonance - duh' ;). Perhaps you could pay me a visit if you come to Belgrade? --HolyRomanEmperor16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would pay you a visit (although I stay in Belgrade fairly rarely). Except... I don't know you — should I look for HolyRomanEmperor at the reception :-). Duja09:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wiki is too driven by POV on all thing Serbian and Croatian. Both sides go to great lengths to edit articles into what they want.
In my view, allowing editing on Wiki is wrong.
That's the problem.
Nobody is in control of the edits.
Administrators have turned a blind eye.
So everyday you see an article being fought over and turned into POV.
As a Australian/Croat i have read many articles relating to Croats and Croatia on Wiki and most have had someone Serb Pov added to them. Now sure some articles such as Tesla have had Croat Pov edits.....so both sides are guilty.
In the eyes of all non Serb or non Croat people we seem stupid...fighting over who or what is Serbian and Croatian.
RE Popullation statistics...we need DNA testing and not just asking people what are you?....a Serb who settled in Croatia 500 years ago is today called a Croat..rendering % of Serbs in Croatia wrong, because that guy isn't counted as Serb...Same goes for Ivica Kralj a proud Montenegrin Serb but by name and origin he is Croat, yet he passes himslef as Montenegrin when statistics are done...get my drift.........it's a mess...we're all mixed to tell ya the truth..
PS How different are we?
Croats and Serbs have more things a like than any other people on earth.
We look the same, speak the same and we have a common root of origin....
I think you will understand me when i say we're fighting a stupid battle.
I was slightly frustrated when I saw Montenegrins. The practical eviction of Serbs from there has ticked off Serbs in Montenegro - and if this is how it's going to work than I have no intention to work on these articles. I already abandoned all work on the Serbs because of Bosnian Serbs, Serbs of Croatia (almost regret for writing those two articles - feelin' quitte like Jovan Rashkovich right now...) - I didn't even know that I would start a wiki-Serbdom-disease - Serbs of Vojvodina - OK, I can understand that - but Serbs in Kosovo? I was strictly opposed of seperating the Albanians in Kosovo and Serbs in Kosovo, but there, they were created. Soon-to-be 2 very, very POV articles (instead of a NPOV middle). This ticked off the Albanians to create Albanians in Central Serbia, Albanians in Montenegro and Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. Wouldn't historical-linguistical-cultural differences be better - like "Serbs of Old Serbia" (grasping Sandzak, Metohija, Kosovo and (northern) Macedonia) - they were seperate from other Serbs; these political Serb-inflations are pretty much ridiculous.
I returned the Serbs to Montenegrins, but I don't think that was what ticked off Serbs in Montenegro. Apparently, there is a "Serbs everywhere" movement... but you were the one who opened the Pandora's box. I don't think anything can be done about it now... Duja06:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are really paranoid. I set up the whole "Serbs infobox" to spearhead the showcasing of various Serb cultures, as I noticed the articles on Jewish people in various countries are set out similarly. Political Serb-inflations? I wouldn't expect such craziness from you HRE... I really don't see what you're objecting to and what you mean by "Serbs everywhere". --estavisti07:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After an impressive showing of community support, you're now an admin. Use the new tools coservatively, especially at first. Re-read the relevant policies before taking action, and consider where diplomacy can do more good than using the tools. But as you get the hang of them, dig in and help out with the backlogs. I'm confident you'll do well, so have fun using the tools to help make a better project. Again, congrats. - TaxmanTalk12:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Desysoping is not necessary, but I wouldn't mind... ah, now I see you provided the correct link. That'll do. If you wish to share the pleasure, just let me know and I'll be there. Duja13:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Duja, I'm really happy to see the shocking ease with which you've became an admin; an incredible feat for a Balkan editor, since blind vetos all too often cut down editors at the rfa only because of their nationalities
. The thought that an editor like you is now admin strengthens my shakened faith in wikipedia, which has suffered a bit from the unpleasantness to which I assisted among admins and long estabilished editors in this September. For this, I humbly thank you
. Ciao, --Aldux13:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. You're not a block-virgin; you're a admin-poll-virgin. Compare that to straight-virgin and anal-virgin to see my point (oh, and vice versa, that is...) Someone had to de-flower that poll for you. Sorry it ended quickly (again)! •NikoSilver•15:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, time for frollicking around is over, let's get back to some serious work. How about breaking the comment-virginity of an AFD that has sat sadly unnoticed for a full two days? Fut.Perf.☼15:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Duja. Well done. Now, can I ask you a little favour? Can you help out with the WP:RM backlog? (Not that bad at the moment, but sometimes it's almost a week long) :o) Asteriontalk19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Živijoooo!
I'd say that I'm happy for you, but that would be a bloody lie since I hate you for having more supports and less opposes than I did! ;-) And, of course, I owe you one "I told you": I told you, man! :-)) Anyway, congratulations, don't get too drunk, we have a backlog at WP:RQM ;-)) --Dijxtra19:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I was first to mention RQM backlog! I ended up second because I was looking for a nice fireworks pic. Take that back, Asterion! ;-)) --Dijxtra19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoo, hold on, girls & boys. I mentioned RQM first [3]. However, I'm currently busy in real life and I have to reduce my wikiholism fof a couple of days. All I managed to do of administrative tasks so far was this.
Thanks everyone for spamming my talk page by kind wishes, and I promise I'll keep up with the backlogs... Duja06:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of Croats
Hi Duja
Can ypu please stop someone who is deleting Ivo Andric, Rudjer Boscovich, John Malkovich from List of Croats.
Also Rudjer Boscovich aricle should have the Serbian theory to his origin deleted from the article or alteast not placed before Italian and Croatian.
I will try to fix it but i might be called a vandal...
Duja - John Malkovich, Josip Boskovic and Ivo Andric are Croats by blood. These people have no place on list of Serbs. thye need to be put on List of Croats asap.
Also some half Croats have been taken out eg Denise Richards etc...
Maradona (Croatian grandmother proven), Hayden (Croatian born in Austria?), Polo (Croat by blood, Venetian?), Andretti (born in Croatia), Tom Hanks (croatian grandparent) etc...if they have some Croat blood or are born in what is Croatia today that needs a small foot note under list of Croats or Possible Croat origin or Born in Croatia.
I don't see why Serbs keep editing them out...anyone who is part Jewish is listed on the Jewish list, Harrison Ford included.
Yes, Tesla should be left on Croats list ashe was born in Croatia but was ethnic Vlah or Serb.
Re Boscovich he is known as Croat Italian first so i don't know why someone is editing him as Serb first Croat 2nd. His Serb origin is a theory and not fact. He was always know as was his father as Dalmatian Croat. No mention of him being Serb ever.
Re Polo see Hrvatski Wiki page for Marko Polo...some interesting facts on him maybe being Croatian after all.
Duja, I have heard many times that Nikola Tesla was of Vlah origin.
That's why i said "possible" Vlah origin in the Vlah article.
Many Serbs don't like that thoery and prefer him to be listed as Serb only and ofen delete any mention of Vlah if posted on site.
Interesting subject if true as it would stop the edit war between Serbs and Croats...Serbs say Serb Origin , Croats say Croat born...interesting spin to the story would be if he was called Vlah and neither Serb or Croat.
From what i know Vlah is Romanian sub group but i have never heard him being called Romanian as such, only Vlah...can you explain why. Perhaps the Romanians don't care too much or are anaware that he was perhaps Vlah Romanian.
I don't want to start trouble honest, but i think we should mention his Vlah origin if it can be proven to some level.
Check out e.g. Morlachs and the picture about migration in Vlachs. The fact is that, during the course of history, nomadic shepherd Vlach (romanian/vlach-speaking) population settled in mountains of Montenegro, Herzegovina, Lika and Istria. They were gradually asimilated by the local Slavic population, accepting Orthodox or Catholic religion and losing their language. During the period of national romanticism and forming of ethnic groups in the Balkans, their successors became Serbs or Croats, depending on religion. It is plausible (I've read some speculations based on his surname, forgot exactly where) that Teslas had a Vlach ancestor, but by the time N.T. was born Morlachs were practically extinct and indistinctive from Serbs and Croats. For example, there are many Croats with surnames like Schwarz or Steiner: did they have an ancestor of German origin? Likely. Are they Croats? Yes, indisputably. It's very moot to talk about someone's ethnic designation solely on the basis of his surname or even known ancestors. Duja11:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template: Slavic ancesty
Ahhh, I've created a Tempalte and could use some mentor assistence with it.
Možeš li da obrišeš redirekt "Independent Republic of Vojvodina" ili da pokreneš proceduru za njegovo brisanje (ja ne znam kako): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Republic_of_Vojvodina Samom članku je promenjeno ime u "Republic of Vojvodina" što je program partije LSV, ali bi redirekt u kom ima reč "independent" ipak trebalo obrisati, jer u programu LSV te reči nema, pa samim tim je i glupo da se ovo redirektuje tamo kad nisu u pitanju isti pojmovi. PANONIAN(talk)00:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
