User talk:Nikola Smolenski/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents

[edit] the co-belligerence article

Regarding co-belligerence, if Finland went so far to go to war on German side in order to evade German occupation, why is German ambition to occupy Finland not a historical fact? Further, isn't German ambition to occupy whole Europe, Finland certainly being a part of, a historical fact? And finally, SU might have had ambition to occupy Finland prior to WWII, but why would it do so while needing any possible resource for fighting with Germany? Nikola 19:59, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was actually about to write to you on your talk-page when I discovered the flash announcing your message.

The Soviet ambition can be proven by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement, by the Winter War and by Stalin's request in Berlin November 1940 to resume the invasion.

The Germans aimed at establishing Finland as a German protectorate during the previous World War. The Finns feared (rightfully) the Nazis much more than they'd feared Imperial Germany, both due to the totalitarian component, but also due to the racism-component, according to which the Finns were considered lesser worth humans. The Finns aimed at escaping the racial perrill by two means. Partly, and initially most importantly, through the Continuation War (which would had erupted also if the Russians hadn't attacked, although Finland's government waited to attack in order not to give the international impression that they were as closely associated with the Nazi government as they in reality were), the second means was the connection to Sweden, whose population were seen as purer Aryans than the Germans. This latter did however not work out as well as the Finns had hoped, in particular not after Mannerheim's infamous order of the day at the beginning of the Finnish offensive in July 1941.

But to go back to 1940, the Finns had to work hard to gain the Nazis' interest. This they (mainly Foreign Minister Witting and ambassador Kivimäki in Berlin) accomplished. But what the Nazi's wanted from Finland was not an occupied territory, but a formally souvereign country (sooner or later a puppet government) in alliance with Germany. There is a notable difference between alliance and occupation.

The Soviet threat was immediate. It was a question of this year or next year. The German threat was hypothetical. As late as a few months before Operation Barbarossa, the German Wehrmacht was counting as one possibility on the case that Finland wouldn't participate, and that Hitler would rule it best not to use Finnish territory (more than exceptionally). After the war was won by the Germans, Finnland would of course have come under strong Nazi influence, as all other parts of Europe, but still not neccessarily under German occupation. No, Germany did not aim at occupy all of Europe. The Nazis aimed at occupation and colonization of all of Eastern Europe, but for the Finns it was important to get the Nazis to perceieve the Finns as Scandinavians and not as Eastern Europeans.

best regards!
--Ruhrjung 20:55, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I never thought to look up ban, I assumed it was a spelling mistake or something :) Thanks! Adam Bishop 14:35, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Croation

Could you check out Talk:Croatian language and reply (politely!) to Mir Harven, please? Thanks. Martin 08:52, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No. He doesn't deserve it and wouldn't listen it anyway. I will however gladly reply to any specific question anyone else might have. Nikola 08:59, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Nikola,

I - rather by accident - stumbled upon a few articles, made some little corrections (at least I thought so), and suddenly had a great viewpoint on some raging edit wars. As you have surely noticed, many articles around Serbian and Croatian themes tend to easily become part of such edit wars. But this takes time away that we could spend on creating better articles or going out with friends and such.

When the Wikipedia grows, it will get even more contributors. This also means, in an ongoing edit struggle based on a "real world" political (or ethnical, religious or whatever) conflict, there will be only more disturbances, and not less. This could kill off the whole project, I fear, something I really wouldn't like to see, but fear.

In order to avoid this, I looked at the many pages about the former Yugoslavian republics. And I still have high hopes, that even such highly disputed pages may reach some kind of stabilization. But to succeed in this, I think, it would be very useful to form teams, groups, who together watch about the NPOV in such a warred terrain. And the members of such group should ideally be able to represent different sides of the conflict.

You are very interested in Serbian themes, therefor I guess, you are a Serb? I am a Croat, living abroad, and in order to learn more about my roots I try to learn about Croatian themes, but many of my sources are POV, therefor I just love to read the Wikipedia and its NPOV style. But exactly this is endangered.

I honestly believe that, if we work together, others will join us, and so we will succeed in calming down the two sides and reach a way to work more effectively on the Wikipedia.

This is just a suggestion. I would totally understand if you say no. But I would appreciate hearing your opinion on the idea, and how it could be realized in a better way.

Thanks for your time --denny vrandecic 02:58, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC) (still very naive, obviously)

[edit] Kosovo War

Can you not see bias unless it is against the Serbian viewpoint? Since no one can guarantee with 100% accuracy whether something is fact, do you agree with the statement that consistanly taking the Serbian viewpoint, when at least two conflicting versions of an event or statement are given, would give the article bias? If you disagree, then there is no point in reading further, as we cannot even agree on what constitutes bias.

I'll simply mention a few instances (the articles has many, I do not have the time to go through all of it): "Throughout most of the 1980's the Serbs and other non-Albanians minorities were subjected to ever-greater pressures and mistreatment [3] at the hands of the Albanians. As the local police and authorities were all Albanian-dominated, most opted to leave [4] thus rendering the plight of the remaining Serbs even worse."

Both links given as the reason behind this statement are from sites favoring Serbian viewpoint. One could just as easily find sites favoring the Albanian viewpoint, and contradicting these statements. Yet such sites are not to be found in the paragraph.

Next paragraph: "Slobodan Milosevic rose to notoriety in 1987 on the issue of the Kosovo Serbs' plight by promising a group of gathered Serbs in Kosovo Polje that they shouldn't fear the (Albanian-dominated) police, promising them that no one had the right to beat them just because they had gathered to protest."

Here we see words such as plight of the serbs, and maintaining human rights of the serbs, without mention of just how such rights would be restored, and basing the abuses on Serbian sources. Thereby making the Serbs the victims, and the Albanians the oppressors, and legitimizing the later Serb crackdown on the Albanians, while delegitimizing the NATO war, based solely on the Serbian viewpoint.

Another paragraph: "In the mid-1990s, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was formed to fight for independence for Kosovo. Most Kosovan Albanians saw the KLA as legitimate "freedom fighters" whilst the Serbian government called them terrorists. Following massive attacks by the KLA in January of 1998 which led to numerous deaths, the Serbian police moved against February 28, 1998 began to wipe out so-called "terrorist gangs" in Kosovo. Some of the incidents, like the killing of 6 Serbian teenagers in Pec, Kosovo, and killings of Kosovo Albanians loyal to Serbia KLA has not admitted as their acts. In February, 1998, Special American Representative to Yugoslavia Robert Gelbard also called the KLA a terrorist organization."

"In December 1998, the cease-fire between the KLA and Yugoslavia broke down. The following months were marked by military and civilian killings by both sides. On January 15 the Yugoslav military and Serbian police forces took part in an anti-KLA operation in the village of Racak. Later they were accused of killing 45 Albanians in Racak. The so-called "Racak Massacre" was one of the primary justifications for the Kosovo War and an indictment in the war crimes trial of Milosevic, although some believe existing evidence suggests that the Albanians were killed in battle. [5]"

"military and civilian killings by both sides" -- this implies that such killings were on an equal scale, whereas the Albanians would maintain that the Serbian killings were on a much higher scale.

"The so-called "Racak Massacre" was one of the primary justifications for the Kosovo War and an indictment in the war crimes trial of Milosevic, although some believe existing evidence suggests that the Albanians were killed in battle" -- OK, so the Albanian viewpoint is "so-called a massacre", whereas the Serbian viewpoint is that they were killed in battle (including the dead children and burned old ladies).

Here we also see the KLA portrayed as a totally terroristical organization, whereas the Serbian army is simply defending the poor Serbian minority from those evil Albanians. No mentions of any Serbian attrocities, which surely did not occur and were made up by those lying Albanians that want all the Serbian lands for themselves. All the old ladies and children crying on Albanian TV about their loved ones having been killed by the Serbian special forces were simply lying. They were just saying that because they were afraid of those bad, bad, terrorist KLA that had threatened them.

The KLA was mostly a fringe organization before the Serbian army crackdown. Why did it swell and gain support from the local Albanian population and immigrants from abroad if there were no Serb attrocities? If the Serbs were simply protecting their own minority, why did the Albanians say they were forced to flee their homes at gunpoint. Why were their papers teared at the Albanian border if the Serbs did not want to commit ethnic cleasning and prevent them from returning home once the conflict was over because of lack of documents. The Albanian viewpoint is simply brushed aside and closed to non-existant in the article, yet you and Igor vehemently oppose any changes that might be biased in the Albanian viewpoint (or even neutral in my opinion).

The article contains only images of NATO misdoings, yet there are no pictures of alleged Serbian attrocities, why is that? Do they simply not exist, or is it simply convenient to leave them out?

Here's a page in case you have trouble finding them (WARNING: the images are very graphic): http://www.alb-net.com/warcrimes-img/warcrimes.htm

There fighting age men (which does not necessarily mean they were fighting), and there are women, children, and old people. Is it simply a matter of not finding public domain pictures???

Articles from the Human Rights Watch (ragarding both KLA and Serbian atrocities):

Some choice quotes: "The most serious atrocities documented in the report took place in two villages near Glogovac: Staro Cikatovo and Stari Poklek, both places where the KLA was active. In Poklek, the police blocked a group of ethnic Albanians—mostly members of the extended Muqolli family— from fleeing their village and forced them into the house of a relative. After a few hours, the owner of the house, Sinan Muqolli, and another man were taken outside, executed and thrown into the family well.

Shortly thereafter, a grenade was thrown into the room holding at least forty-seven persons, including twenty-three children under the age of fifteen. One man in uniform raked the room with automatic gunfire, a survivor said, killing everyone inside except six people. A member of the Muqolli family is a local commander of the KLA."

"Luljeta Deliaj, aged twenty-eight, was two months pregnant according to family members; her belly had been cut open. According to journalists at the scene, Pajazit Deliaj, aged sixty-five, was found in the makeshift tent with his throat cut open and part of his brain removed and placed next to him. Human Rights Watch later saw photographs of Pajazit Deliaj's corpse that clearly showed that his t hroat had been cut and his brain mutilated."

So fleeing of the Serbs prior to any Albanian reprisals (which there were eventually), is ethnic cleansing, but the forcing on gunpoing to leave the country of hundreds of thousands of Albanians and the killing of 23 children with a grenade is not.

Especially enlightening are the reports about Albanian "terrorists" being arrested, and the "family of combatants" being kept from harming Serb minorities. But none of this ever happened right. The Serbian army was just protecting its minority and did absolutely no harm to the Albanians and thus there is no need to mention them. I still do not see how you could take the side of those serbian special forces and spread their lies. I do not defend KLA killings of civilians why do you? They were not protectors send by Milosevic to protect the Serbian minorities, they are beyond animals. Animals only kill to eat, whereas they killed out of pleasure. It is very disturbing to see these omissions. Do you simply believe that everything the Albanians say is made up and everything the Serb officials say is the truth???

Do you see the bias yet? Or does the article still seem neutral to you?

This is my last posting regarding this issue, as I know I don't have the nerve to do into edit wars. If you want to keep editing go ahead, but please stop pretending that you are being NPOV. If you are the only one believing that, that it clearly is not so.

What say you?

--Dori 18:13, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Me say, nothing of this has anything to do with what I was talking about (NATO casaulties). I agree that fighting with KLA inside Kosovo are not covered enough. Nikola 03:14, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] freesrpska.org

Hi,

please don't use material from a clearly one-sided source without editing first. Terms like "hero" are not neutral and should therefore be avoided if they are not properly attributed. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. If they are not, they're likely to end up on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion sooner or later.—Eloquence 15:27, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern :) I always edit them, you can see that by comparing the texts with original ones. I also don't put here everything I could from the site. Now, I took more time to edit some texts, less time for other, depending on importance of them and my mood. On the term "hero" in particular, I was deleting such things sometimes, sometimes not, when I was agreeing with them. If anyone does not agree, well, they're free to delete the term. I don't know everyone's POV and cannot write from more then one POV. Perhaps some Turks think that Sindjelic is a war criminal - I don't whether they do! Nikola 16:13, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
As I pointed out on Talk:List of Serbs, I don't like to see the link to that freesrpska website at all. We now have dozens of short articles pointing to a propaganda website, and that is not desirable. So this link should be removed, and the articles must be rewritten. Nobody wants to force you to write articles from a pro-Albanian viewpoint; what you should do, is just reporting facts and let others draw the conclusions. Many of these articles may even have fine content, but the links to that propaganda site have a nasty taste to it. You have done some really good work here, Nikola, and I really want to see you staying here and writing articles about Serbia - but please not by copying content from biased pages. -- Cordyph 16:54, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't like many things in my life, yet I have to accept some. The links must not be removed, as they were requirement for copyright permission of that site. And no matter how propagandist, biased, false, or evil a site is, there might be articles on it that are neither, which is (more or less) the case with these articles. The articles will - I hope! - be rewritten, but the links should stay because of copyright issues, even with a warning to readers about the nature of the site if neccesary. These articles would take days instead of hours to be made if they weren't copied from there.
(Godwin's law already in act :/ ) If, in article about Adolf Hitler, it would be mentioned that source for his biographical data was Mein Kampf (I presume that the book has some biographical data in it), I don't think that anyone would complain. No matter how bad rest of the contents of the book is, these data are probably correct, possibly even the most correct of all available.
What about pictures (I intend to upload them as soon as that becomes possible)? Do you think that the links should be removed from their descriptions as well? That pictures are biased? That it should be not allowed to use any pictures from propgandist sites? I don't think that the last is Wikipedia policy.
Now I'm thinking more about that warning I mentioned: wouldn't something like "Source: freesrpska.org- be warned that some of other articles on this site might be propagandistic and biased" suffice? Nikola 17:46, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
There is already a discussion about these issues on Wikien-l. It is probably fair to tell you that your work is discussed there. If you like you may state your opinion there. Regarding your last question, I am still in favour of removing the links (which is okay, if the content is rewritten). -- Cordyph 18:16, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thank you very much for telling me, I owe you :) Perhaps what you say could be done, though I don't see how anyone could rewrite english text of Boze Pravde. But again, what about pictures? Nikola 04:13, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the links need to be removed or that we need a propaganda disclaimer, but they should be embedded into a footer text similar to the one on Britannica pages, e.g.:

This article is originally based on a text which has been published on freesrpska.org under the GNU Free Documentation License.

To address Cordyph's concerns, perhaps we can agree that the notice can be removed when someone rewrites the article to contain no more freesrpska material, but I think we should make an effort to salvage existing FDL material.—Eloquence 23:30, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's OK with me, just note that, text of the site is not entirely under GFDL and is not published under GFDL on the site. Only I have gotten permission to publish it under GFDL, and even I only to Wikipedia (of course, after that it could be copied further). Tehnically, I have the right to copy the entire site here, which would make it fully GFDL, but I don't plan to do so :) Nikola 04:13, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Nikola. Would you recommend me any online and free of charge English- Serbian or Serbian-English dictionary or thesaurus? kt2 19:32, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

http://www.krstarica.com/dictionary/english-serbian/ . And for all other searches for dictionaries I highly recommond http://www.yourdictionary.com . Site is mostly unknown, but it deserves a shrine. Nikola 04:13, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Great, Thanx a whole lot. kt2 04:41, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Correct date of St. Virus' day

Hi again. This site [1] states that the day is on June 28 whereas this [2] states June 15. I am just wondering which site is correct. kt2 04:51, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Both, and second.
I checked and rechecked at several places including my head :) St. Vitus falls on June 28th of the Julian calendar but in 1389 it was on June 15th. So, battle of Kosovo happened on 15th, Lazar fell on 15th. It is interesting that noone (including me) noticed this until now, the article about the battle is there for ages. This needs to be corrected everywhere where it is copied wrongly, though it should be noted that the battle is celebrated on 28th, as it happened on St. Vitus (and Saint Hieromartyr Lazar is also celebrated on that day).
If I may ask, why do you have so much interest in Lazar? Don't understand this wrongly, I'm flattered but also curious :) Nikola 19:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Cool, I thought we could have found out an inaccuracy of one of the two sources but the discrepancy in fact stems from the Julian calendar. This is one of the reasons why I like Wikipedia - its open content and Linus's Law (enough eyeballs make all bugs shallow) implementation bring "undiscovered" correctness to articles.
As for the article itself, my calendar convertor [3] states that June 28 2003 in Gregorian calendar is June 15 2003 in Julian; however June 15 1389 correspnds to June 23 1389 in Gregorian. Since you have said that St. Vitus Day was on June 15 1389 instead of June 28 1389, the discrepancy now stems from the choice of the feast day for Saint Vitus, given my calendar is supposedly correct. The convertor also seems to go back one day in Gregorian every century when a day was converting from the Julian. June 15 in Julian corresponds to June 28 in Gregorian since and including 1900; however it corresponds to June 27 in 19th century, June 26 in 18th century. Hope it provide some insights to this discrepancy.
Your convertor is using Proleptic Gregorian Calendar. June 15th was June 15th until 1583, when it jumped to June 25th. Additional three days accumulated over the years. Nikola
My Serbian interest stems from my political sience and history study, which was chosen to be concentrated on the Balkans and East Asia. (So wikipedians often find me working on those articles). Another reasons came from in certain extent my admiration of the Balkan culture. I even had a "Russian Canadian" girlfriend in high school, (her parents are Russians and she was born in Canada), who I had broken up with long time ago. Russian and Serbian are not same but that relationship still explains a lot of my interests, including that of the Battle of Kosovo and its participants, which is also a patriotic symbol of the Serbians. kt2 22:07, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation :) I intend to add more quality articles when I get my copy of Sveznanje back and will notify you. Have you checked Serbian proverbs about Russians? ;) Nikola 07:37, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/k/User_talk%7ENikola_Smolenski_Archive_1_b6bb.html"