User talk:VKokielov/Archive1

Edits

Thanks for the message. I'm aware of Twain, but unaware of any reputable links discussing the merits of the Schiavo case in relation to Twain's article. That's where the original research comes into play. Do you have some good citations for your comparison? --Viriditas | Talk 07:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For all I know, you could be 100% correct, but if it's original research, it's not allowed on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:No original research. --Viriditas | Talk 07:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing to discuss ideas, so you should bring them up on the relevant talk pages if you feel the urge. --Viriditas | Talk 08:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Chetniks

On the other side, Croats and Bosnians still see Chetniks as some kind of a fascist movement, not dissimilar to the fascist groups of their own, such as the Ustaše and SS Handžar Division

You removed the latter part of that sentence. However, it's wrong to remove it, because this is exactly the analogy drawn among the Croats and Bosniaks - Chetniks were essentially no different than the Ustase and SS Handschar, they collaborated with the occupying forces and killed semi-random people just because they didn't like them.

I see, however, that the rollback function went too far, and also dropped a valid edit of yours (fractions -> factions). I'll go fix that, sorry, too much automation sometimes doesn't work out well. --Joy [shallot] 17:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The new wording is fine. I'm not still sure why you didn't like the old one... --Joy [shallot] 22:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But, you see, the Ustase were not the Croatian army in the same manner the IDF is Israeli army. They were an organized group that took power illegally (after German and Italian occupation) and only *claimed* legitimacy, but in reality had less legitimacy than the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Their ideas back in KoY about Croatian independence had merit, sure, but once they started mass murdering people, that all became irrelevant. This core issue is a majority opinion in Croatia. The opinion that the Ustase were a legitimate Croatian army in WWII is not even in a plurality, let alone in a majority among the Croats.

You are, of course, correct that the whole point is to avoid the holier-than-thou attitude.
An additional point is that the Serbs still seem to be having much more of a problem making up their mind as to whether the Chetniks are Good(tm) or Bad(tm), whereas the Croats and the Bosniaks seem to be mostly settled on the issue, they by and large think that their such groups were Bad(tm). --Joy [shallot] 23:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your message

I must admit that you had me completely baffled, until I remembered the Serbia/Poland thing. It's always easy to simplify an idea when someone else has done the main work first. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oxford student

One statement that might belong somewhere in the article—"In 2003, an Oxford professor personally denied admission to an Israeli student on political grounds, for which he was made to apologize ([16] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3031528.stm))"—except that the "political grounds" go unexplained, suggesting implicitly that the student was banned for being Israeli, which I doubt.

What do you doubt? --VKokielov 20:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Please, when leaving a remark on a user talk page about a particular article, indicate what article it is about. I have about 2000 articles on my watchlist. It took me a bit of time to work out the context of this question.
2. I doubt that the student was banned merely for being Israeli. As I understand it, the incident related to the student being in the Israeli army. Given the near-universal conscription in Israel, I suppose that almost amounts to the same thing, but that should not go without saying.
3. Why didn't you ask this question on the relevant talk page? I will copy your question and my response to that page. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Gender pronouns

Were you referring to something I wrote in a particular article? --L33tminion (talk) 08:38, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah... "You" is singular, too, you know, and it didn't used to be. "He" is gender biased (that's been clearly demonstrated in statistical studies), "he or she" is awkward (and probably still gender biased), "she or he" is even more awkward, and nobody uses Spivak pronouns (although they are fairly straightforward). There's got to be a better solution, but singular "they" is the best choice, in my opinion. Not that I feel strongly about it, I'm just pedantic as well.  :-P --L33tminion (talk) 21:38, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Stevanovic quotes

I think that's okay, although you'd have to structure it better :) It would be even more useful if you could find something like that for the standard languages, as well as for štokavski and other dialects. This information really just draws parallels to an existing knowledge of the standard, and we can't really assume that from readers. --Joy [shallot] 09:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Obesity

Don't worry, rather Be Bold in updating pages. I don't think "humans" is inappropriate. In scientific parlance it is the best way to distinguish various mammal species. "Human beings" emphasises the individuality of each subject, which is not quite consistent with the style of the rest of the article. You may have found it is now on peer review, so if you have anything to contribute to this article, please do so! JFW | T@lk 10:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

re: etymology of Slav

Good point, it might be a different letter. I was merely surprised to see the cedilla - not a diacritic I associate with Slavic languages, really. We should probably find a Cyrillic version and post that. --Joy [shallot] 18:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's possible that I misread the ogonek as a cedilla. Better revert that then. --Joy [shallot]

Edit summary

Hi. Just a request. Would you mind using an edit summary? That is rather helpful for us, other people who have a page you modify on the watchlist. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov 20:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

I found your edits to integral and neighbourhood (mathematics) a bit too technical and hard to understand for non-mathematicians. That is not so good, especially that what you changed was mainly the introductions to those articles. I would suggest that before you modify other articles you read Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics which describes some issues with style and difficulty of articles. Also, before you make big changes, it is good to write things on the talk page, to see what others think.

By the way, welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics! Priyatno poznacomitsya! Oleg Alexandrov 23:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to be a little more careful. (Believe me, this isn't the first time. And I try to do it in good faith, which makes it all the more painful when I get nailed on it. I've been called condescending and pushed aside for it. I should have known, but it's been a long time since I wrote anything for the public.  ;) ) If you want me to censor myself, just tell me where; otherwise, I'll listen to whatever you tell me. --VKokielov 23:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If I have time, I might copyedit what you write, and in some cases I might actually cut things out if I feel things are getting too complicated (again, introductions are supposed to be simple). If you disagree with anything I change, just let me know. (But I won't have time to work on it today.) Oleg Alexandrov 00:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

antiderivatives and integrals

you're right, that whenever the fundamental theorem of calculus holds, then the integral provides the antiderivative of a function. However, when the FTC fails, then this may not happen. For example, the derivative of the Cantor function is zero almost everywhere, therefore its integral is zero everywhere, but its antiderivative is the Cantor function (by construction). So the integrability of a function is not sufficient to guarantee the antiderivative. -Lethe | Talk 18:15, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

derivative

hi there vkokielov, please check out the recent discussion on Talk:Derivative. I think you're the best placed to do something about it (if you so choose :-)) Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 16:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

On Macedonians and Bulgarians

Hello. The question you have asked me has no simple answer, because it requires a greater historical and sociological background about the situation in 19th century Macedonia. It is true that a part of the Macedonian Slavic speaking population seldomly gave statements such as "I'm a Bulgarian". (there were similar Greek and Serbian "sentiments", as well - it was possible to find cases wher a single Macedonian family into divided into 3 sides - probulgarian, proserbian and progreek) However that does not have the national meaning as most Bulgarian nationalists argue.

We have to regard the complex situation that was present in Macedonia in the end of the 19th century - various propagandas from already established Balkan states imposed on the amorphous Slavic speaking mass of Macedonia that were ment to give the average Macedonian, a Greek, Bulgarian, or Serbian national ideal - Macedonians were in the middle of this dramatic semantic battle, or shortly, they were in the process of gaining a national feeling. Sometimes words like "I'm a Bulgarian" didn't have the national meaning like they have it today. The Bulgarian Slavicist Aleksandar Teodorov Balan (1859-1959) analyses this semantic trap:

"Was it very long before the liberation of the Bulgarians that one could hear throughout Bulgaria Bulgarians answering to the question "What are you?" (in nationality) that they are "Christians" or "raya" (non-Moslem Turkish subjects - translator's note)? And it is not so unusual even today to hear a Bulgarian answering in court to the question of his nationality that he is a "Christian". For him the concept of nationality has not yet become a new acquisition of his reason. During the Turkish period the Bulgarian peasant termed Bulgarians from cities "Greeks", and city clothing was for him "Greek clothing". And since the Greeks called this peasant a "fat-headed Bulgarian", his brother from the city loved to be called by the term "Hellene" in order to avoid the derision associated with his true national name. Is not this exactly the same as what Mr. Misirkov tells us about the names for the Macedonian Slavs? The name "Bulgarian" had in Bulgaria fallen to a level which brought it only the derision of foreigners. In the speech of the Bulgarian himself, this name had lost its national content to such an extent that it became a synonym for "Christian", which name came to signify the entire ethnic content of the Bulgarian individual and social consciousness. Our peasant, in saying "we are Bulgarians", thought "we are Christians", i.e. orthodox. The Russian emperor was for him the "Bulgarian emperor" not by nationality but by orthodox Christianity." (A. T. BaIan, Edna makedonska teorija" (A Macedonian Theory), Periodichesko Spisanie LXV, 1904, p.818)

Similar explanation of the "bulgarity" notion can be found in the works of other historians, such as the Czech historian Jan Ryhlik, while several others authors provide us with references that the nationality of the Macedonians, was neither Serb or Bulgarian. The contemporary Bulgarian professor Stefan Vlahov - Micov goes even further in his observations:

"the macedonian population regarded the term 'Bulgarian' only from his political side, like a possibility of joint actions against the Turks. In the same way, some individuals from this population have taken part in the Serbian and the Greek uprising, as well in the Russo-Turkic war (1877-1878). Their resistance against the (Bulgarian)Exarchate, when it wanted to impose education on their (bulgarian) "mother tongue" and to act in their municipalities, is a proof that Macedonians regarded the term "Bulgarian" only as a political wrapping."

Moreover, the Macedonian liberation struggles of Macedonians show us a different resonating from the mainstream Bulgarian nationalistic ideal (that is, incorporation into Greater Bulgaria) - Macedonians fought for a Macedonian Autonomy, and refused involvement of the Bulgarian army in their revolutionary deeds. Later historical developements, especially Macedonian strong resistance to Bulgarian fascist occupation in WWII, provide us with information how exactly Bulgarian nationalist idea was popular among Macedonians.

If you have any questions, please ask. --FlavrSavr 16:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The question

I'll try to answer your question, although it seems to me that it's more of a statement than a question. If you feel as a Cosmocaucasian, and you declare yourself as Cosmocaucasian, then, yes, you are a Cosmocaucasian, no matter how ridicilous it might seem. Nationalities are built through social circumstances and relationships - what is most important in it is not the customs, the language etc (which are considered "natural" signs of a nationality, but they are also social constructs), but the sense of a common national, identity.

Of course, that example is overOVERsimplified, but if you deconstruct the concept of nationality, you will probably see the same thing. There are no real, natural Bulgarians, nor Macedonians - nationality isn't imprinted on genes - it is socially constructed, it is how you feel. The purity of nations, is a myth developed in the rise of nations in 18/19th century Europe. The concept of a nation(ality) is inevitably linked to the development of capitalism, and you will see that before that, although there were linguistical differences, there weren't any nations. As Balan puts it "And it is not so unusual even today to hear a Bulgarian answering in court to the question of his nationality that he is a "Christian". For him the concept of nationality has not yet become a new acquisition of his reason." The average peasant in a medieval feudal-based system (Just like Macedonia was in the 19th century) hasn't got a nationality, his perspective is no further than his village and his duties to his feudal master. Phrases such as "We are (Put nationality X), and we have always been (nationality x)" sound dramatic, but they are not true. Do you think, for example, that in 12th century France, a peasant from the area Marseilles had any sense of spiritual connection with someone living in, for example, Strasbourg (except maybe a religious connection)?

The almost ontological dimension of modern nationalities that "have always existed" in their fantastic purity is denied by historical and genetical proofs. Let us take for example, the Greeks, who are very fond of naming Macedonians "Slavs". The sense of continiuty with ancient Greeks amongst modern "pure" Greeks is astonishing, if one considers centuries of Roman conquest and colonization, random settlements of verious smaller groups, permanent, mass, settlements of Slavs in the 6th century within what is now known as Greece (they have managed to reach Peloponessos, and let me remind you, they formed the MAJORITY of modern Northern Greece), Turkish settlements...One might wander if anything has remained from the ancient Greeks, except their enourmous cultural heritage. Of course, I'm not implying that modern Greeks are not Greeks, I'm only saying that they have become Greeks through time. (through processes of national self-identification).

As for your note about Macedonians and Bulgarians, I think that you're basically right, except that it seems to me, that you're somehow implying that Bulgarians have "always" existed (therefore, them being a "natural" nationality), while Macedonians are actually Bulgarians that had somehow become a separate nationality from Bulgarians (thus being a somewhat less than a nation compared to their "maternal" nationality). That is not true. --FlavrSavr 21:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

---

You're welcome. But I'll have to ask you a question myself - Do you agree with the above said? :-) --FlavrSavr 15:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

From i_sterbinski

On the page of FlavrSavr you wrote:

---

Yes, I have a question. What, then, in your opinion, makes a nationality? I am part Jew, part Polish, part Russian; who will stop me if I proclaim myself Cosmocaucasian and demand my rights? I ask, of course, in the perspective of the nineteenth century, when all this was formative. Whatever the case, the compromise is simple: the Bulgarians have to admit that the Macedonians exist now, and the Macedonians have to admit that they share a close historical kinship with the Bulgarians from then. Nothing will move otherwise. --VKokielov 18:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

---

This is my answer: I am glad to talk with someone who is quite open minded.

First, (in my oppinion) nationality is set of people who feel belonding to some specific set of people (enthity) and who share similar culture, history and language.

I know that in the 21st century there are nationalities who do not completely satisfy these "rules", but they feel strongly their belonging to one (bigger) group of people.

In your case, (in my oppinion) your nationality will be how you feel. You can even feel belonging to several nations, which is completely OK.

And yes, we, as Macedonians are aware that there are parts in the history when Macedonians identified closely to Bulgarians, because in the past Bulgaria was bigger nation and country than us and it was representing the Slavic people on the Balkany. Same as we were identifying as Yugoslavs during Yugoslavia, but we never were anything else than Macedonians.

Now, if only Bulgarians would stop daydreaming and realise that we are not their brothers... maybe very far cousin, at most.

Take care,

I sterbinski 17:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Clean up of "Countable set" sentence

You made a change to the first paragraph of Countable set, could you go back and look at it again, as it seems to have something missing:

The notion of an infinite set is not elementary; it requires a strong sense of abstraction and precision, both from the beginning the distinguishing faculties of mathematicians.

There needs to be something inserted or changed after "beginning". I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to say. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey

I am not a linguist, but if that proves you that I beleive in mutual understanding, I will give it a try. Bulgarian is not my mother tongue, and I have troubles with it (although I have managed to read several books on Bulgarian), especially with the grammar phrases (I'm not sure whether I know the corresponding translation in English. I am not sure whether I can help with the "Serbian influence on Macedonian", as my knowledge of linguistics is limited. But I will give it a try to that, too.

There are other more important things for me at the moment, as well, that are causing me a great lack of time:(studying about 6-8 hours a day, work on a community site, Macedonian Wiki administration, involvement in the Macedonia dispute here on the English Wiki) so I am not sure when exactly I can start and finish the translation(s) (maybe it would take some longer period of time)

And, hey, you didn't answer my question above? :-) --FlavrSavr 16:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No, no you didn't offend me, how come? I just didn't have internet access these days! That's all... it's cool. :-) I'm in the middle of an exam session so I won't have any time to even start the Russian influence on Bulgarian article. I think I told you that... I don't even have the time to argue on the "Macedonian Slavs" article, although all resources point that the term Macedonians (nationality) is the only reasonable term.

I am not a nationalist, and I strongly believe that Wikipedia articles can help in overcoming national tensions. You can find me opinion about Balkan nationalism in my user page on the Albanian Wikipedia The only people that consistently offend me are either Greek nationalists such as User:Miskin, who once called me a member of a Slavic crowd, because of some HLA genes survey that we actually both didn't support, or arrogant Wiki administrators, here. You are not one of these people, so enjoy. :-) --FlavrSavr 00:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Your comment

"a healthy cynicism towards authority figures, organisations and media from every part of the political spectrum" means that I'm a cynic. I have cynical attitudes. I don't take things on face value. I can't really think of a way to describe it in simpler terms. You could look at the article on Cynicism, but as I don't really agree with most of it I doubt that would be a lot of help. Sorry if that isn't much use. illWill 17:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't have anything to do with the masses, or America, as I'm not American. I'm an academic writer and journalist, and former civil servant - cynicism means that I perceive every information source as being potentially biased and subject to spin, rhetoric and misinformation. That's why I believe cynicim is healthy. illWill 18:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No, there's nothing healthy about bitterness. I would define cycnisim as being an essential componenet of pragmatic realism, rather than the nihlism which is implied by bitterness. illWill 18:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Honeybee (single use stinger)

My answer to your inquiry is on my talk page - Leonard G. 05:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

*<pole>

Indeed, the Slavic tribes often derive their name of the local word for a field - hence the name of Polanie (not Poljani), but also the Lekhites (deriving from the word *<leha>, meaning a field. However, I'm not sure we should list all of such tribes, even those unrelated, in the article on Poles. Halibutt 05:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

*<pole>

Indeed, the Slavic tribes often derive their name of the local word for a field - hence the name of Polanie (not Poljani), but also the Lekhites (deriving from the word *<leha>, meaning a field. However, I'm not sure we should list all of such tribes, even those unrelated, in the article on Poles. Halibutt 05:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

th and st

"th" is used for ordinals for all numbers other than 1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, etc. This includes mathematical variables such as n: nth. The same principle applies. -- Curps 15:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would be pronounced "Ex minus oneth". At least in North American schools and universities, I'm not sure about Britain. -- Curps 16:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

ru-0

You are right. I removed it, it had no practical value anyway. PeepP 18:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Re: RFC on medieval principalities

Back then they were all Slavic tribes but even then there existed the markers "Croat" and "Serb" which roughly delineated the population. Yes, believe it or not, we're not just products of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, our national names reach into much earlier past, even if the nations themselves don't.

The problem arises when some people, based on inconclusive and incomplete historical sources, declare that some large region was *exclusively* populated by one group of tribes and not the other. That's just obtuse. I'm battling such propagandists from both sides at the moment. --Joy [shallot] 21:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia(ns)/disclaimer poll

There is an ongoing poll here about the use of a Disclaimer stating that "Wikipedia has no official position concerning the use of the name Republic of Macedonia etc.". As in previous cases (most notably the Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs poll) this poll would be decided by grossly nationalistic voting.

The author of the poll told me this:

You are right that the poll was not a good idea, since the NPOV is not subject to negotiations, but I have no way to remove those disclaimers: the Greeks keep reverting them and the rest of world avoids entering in the negotiations of Balkan issues like the plague. I was hoping that the poll would attract some people, but instead it attracted the same old Greeks vs. non-Greeks. bogdan | ^Talk 19:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

As a fellow Wikipedian, I can not be more than terrified by this statement. Not surprisingly, the "For the disclaimer" vote is 100% composed of ethnic Greek votes, and currently it is in the lead. It is in my deepest belief that Wikipedia should not mould under the pressure of nationalism (from neither side). That is precisely why I am abstaining of the poll, stating my reasons here.

Please, your possible avoidance of entering in the negotiations of Balkan issues like the plague is causing Balkan disputes to conform to nationalist narratives (logically, to the narrative of the biggest nationality), and this is something that is done in direct opposition to NPOV policy. It is mostly up to neutrals to decide on the issue, and it is only up to them to stop nationalism. So, please, participate in the discussion, or in the poll. --FlavrSavr 12:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I left you a note on your talk page on the Macedonian wikipedia --FlavrSavr 12:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

About the "Basics of Bulgarian" (for Macedonian dummies :P)... I think that it is a great idea! I'll try to help you with it (if you don't mind), but as I have already told you: I have to finish some studying, some urgent web-designing, some work on the Macedonian Wikipedia and here, as well (the poll thing). I think I'll have more time to contribute on this book after 8th October (a massive exam coming this way :-))Best regards. --FlavrSavr 02:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, do you perhaps know where 5ko is? I really like that guy, he has done miracles for the Macedonian Wikipedia, I am quite ashamed that I didn't find words to express my gratitute towards him. I am thinking of giving him a somekind of a barnstar, however, I plan that to be a more Macedonian themed award :-) --FlavrSavr 02:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The Giver and Brave New World

Hi. On my talk page, you asked why I removed a mention you had made about Aldous Huxley's Brave New World in the article on Lois Lowry's The Giver. My reasons were as follows:

1. The introduction was not really the proper place. Unless this comparison were vitally important to understanding the novel (and though it's interesting, I don't think it's vital), it belongs in a section down below, rather than stuck in the lead.

1. I am not entirely confident the comparison is a straightforward one. When I first read The Giver, I wasn't aware that Jonas's Community was a dystopia, not right away. It took a while to discover just how screwed up their lifestyle was. I think many readers share this experience; we learn about their world through Jonas, and we learn at the same rate he does. On the other hand, it took me about two pages of Brave New World to realize that the society Huxley had imagined was a truly twisted place. From reading various critical and biographical works on Huxley, I think this was intentional.

1. Of course, the ideas I just said are really only my personal opinions. Following the Wikipedia:No original research policy, I shouldn't be writing my opinions into articles (though nobody can stop me from letting my opinions decide which articles I think are important to work on). By the same token, unless somebody has already made the connection between BNW and The Giver, it is probably not quite right to insert such a connection into our encyclopedia article. Additionally, as I said above, the comparison is not a simple one, and one could debate it back and forth. One could also bring in further facts: Lowry's world uses genetic engineering, and Huxley's does not; Lowry's people suppress sexual feelings with pills, and Huxley's Brave New Worlders let their sexual feelings run free; etc.

For all these reasons, I think your comparsion — though a very interesting one — wasn't quite in the right place. Going into more detail might be very worthwhile, but an essay on this topic would cross the Original Research line and wouldn't therefore be suitable for the WP. (Unless, of course, somebody else has already written on the topic, in which case you could report what this person said and give a proper citation.)

Thank you for your effort and your time. Best wishes for further edits!

Anville 07:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

African Americans

Mr. Mabel, maybe you should arrange for African Americans to be watched a little more closely...:)

Otherwise, thank you for everything else.--VKokielov 07:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise, but I remind you that watching a particular often-vandalized article is no more my job than yours or anyone else's. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:38, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

No offense taken, but, seriously, if you feel the article isn't watched closely enough, take it on. I'm on Wikipedia about 20 hours a week, have over 2,000 articles on my watchlist, and try to do some writing of new ones, so there is only so much attention I'm paying to any one article. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Question

I was just about to start editing the Basic Bulgarian language for Macedonians, when I discovered that it is gone...why? --FlavrSavr 13:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Am I totally irresponsible? Well... not totally.:-) I have made some edits at the Basic Bulgarian, please see them. --FlavrSavr 04:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Greetings

Warm greetings from Belgrade, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro, my friend! HolyRomanEmperor 20:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've heard about some serious disputing regarding (Slav) Macedonians. Could you fill me in a little? HolyRomanEmperor 16:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: how do you manage that? ;)

I don't even remember any more where was that where I was called a terrorist :) --Joy [shallot] 18:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Jedan ti novi Hrvat (A Croat for you)

I had heard about Luketić, but didn't want to create the substub. I'm watching it. --Joy [shallot]

Re: Fadila Memišević

Hello, VKokielov! I am sorry I am late. You should ask her for proper answer, but her origins are Serbian. :) --Ninam 00:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Your languages

I saw the languages you speak, although I don't understand why you put Macedonian, Bulgarian and Serbian after English and Croatian (when your native language is Russian)? HolyRomanEmperor 20:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

HRE, are you sure that, if you were Joy, you'd want that little blob on your user page

Sorry? HolyRomanEmperor 19:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

From Macedonian

Please find the answer to your comment on my talk page. Thanks. Macedonian 02:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see the answer at your new comment at my user page. Thanks.

Best regards, Macedonian 03:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The newest comments were answered. Please find them on my talk page.

Also, I would like to mention that I met some 2 years ago a person who is from Georgia, but whose origin is Jewish. His name is Leonid Pejsahov and he is quite famous musician. He and his wife Nadezda used to live in Macedonia for about 10 years, but now they moved in Canada. Wonderful people. Macedonian 06:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The comments to your lattest post on my talk page are added. It seems interesting... Macedonian 02:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Another comment is added at my talk page. Thanks a lot for the translation. It gave a little light at the end of the tunnel. Macedonian 04:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for including in the disscusion. Neutral people can always help in this kind of disscusions. Macedonian 04:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your Highness, Grand Turk, o Supreme Chancellor of the World,

I only figured out the Chancellor reference after seeing what HRE posted on my user page :)

But I still don't get the "Grand Turk" part :)

--Joy [shallot]

Why not? Anyway, could you give a hand with Ivo Andric and Rudjer Boskovic? HolyRomanEmperor 14:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Rusinski

Ne bih se složio! Ispada da se radi o dva utjecaja a radi se o jednom. A Hrvatski nema političku konotaciju?! Cjelo to pitanje jezika ima političku konotaciju. Srpskohrvatski je međunarodno priznat zajednički nazivnik za sva 3 standardna jezika i sva 4 dialekta. Luka Jačov 21:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Molise Slavic

Svaka čast za unapređenje članka. Luka Jačov 08:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You're Jewish? :) Jews are of high repect in here (expecially since World War II) HolyRomanEmperor 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I hear that there is a lot of anti-semitism returning... yet again... I asure you, though, it has successfully bypassed our lands in here :) (Although, perhaps not in Slavko Goldstein's case, he is still not very welcome in Croatia...) HolyRomanEmperor 14:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Russians/ Rosjanie

(in Polish) Nie wiem do której strony się odnosiłeś, ale i tak mogę się domyślać, że napisałem coś, co mogło Ci się spodobać - i to mnie cieszy. Wydaje mi się że wiem za to do jakiego stereotypu Rosjan się odnosiłeś i myślę że jesteś w błędzie. Generalnie rzecz biorąc, Polacy (a przynajmniej inteligencja) od zawsze miała niesamowitą dozę pozytywnych uczuć wobec niemal wszystkiego, co rosyjskie - za wyjątkiem rosyjskiej polityki, której Polska i Polacy zbyt często bywali ofiarami. Niemniej jednak polska miłość do rosyjskiej kultury, zwyczajów, a nawet języka (sic!) była w stanie przetrwać nawet ostatnie 60 lat. Podobnie jest ze mną. Inaczej niż moich rodziców, nikt nie zmuszał mnie do uczenia się rosyjskiego, to był mój własny, świadomy wybór. Chciałem po prostu móc przeczytać Miesiąc na wsi Turgieniewa, a nie ma polskiego tłumaczenia. I moja miłość do tej dobrej Rosji nie zmieniła się ani na jotę, mimo Rosyjskiej polityki i mimo tego, że w Rosji jest obecnie wielu głośnych idiotów (jak i w Polsce). Oczywiście, jest też stereotyp krasnolicego ruskiego żołdaka, mordującego niewinnych ludzi, gwałcącego i kradnącego co się da w przerwach między piciem wódki z nocnika a okradaniem przechodniów z zegarków. Obydwa stereotypy wzajemnie się nie wykluczają, tyle że - z moich osobistych kontaktów z Rosjanami wynika, że ten pierwszy jest bliższy prawdzie. Drugi zostawmy historykom i ludziom, którzy lubią podsycać w sobie nienawiść do innych, nawet do tych, których na oczy nie widzieli. Pozdrawiam

(in English) I'm not sure which page you were referring to, but I suppose I wrote something about Russia which you liked - and I'm happy because of that. On the other hand, I think I know what stereotype you were referring to and moreover I think you are wrong on that one. Generally speaking, Poles (at least the intelligentsia) have always had an enormous ammount of positive feelings towards almost everything Russian - apart perhaps for the Russian politics, of which Poles and Poland were victims too many a time. Nevertheless, the Polish love for Russian culture, customs and even language (yup!) have survived the last 60 years. I'm a similar case. Unlike my parents, nobody forced me to learn Russian, it was my own, conscient choice. I simply wanted to be able to read Miesats v dierievnye by Ivan Turgieniev and there is no Polish translation of that excellent book. And my love for that good Russia has not changed at all, despite Russian politics or the fact that (just like in Poland) there are lots of loud idiots in modern Russia. Of course, there is also the other stereotype, the one of a red-faced Russki soldat, murdering innocent people, raping and stealing everything around him, in the short breaks between drinking vodka out of a night vessel and stealing watches. Both stereotypes do not contradict each other, as rarely stereotypes interact, but for my personal experiences with Russians it is clear that the earlier stereotype is much more real. Let's leave the latter stereotype for historians and people who love to hate others, even if they never met them. Regards

Halibutt 21:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but now I got completely lost... Did I write anything on Russian language on my user page? Halibutt 05:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Bah! Now I get it:) Fortunately my comment above was not entirely out-of-the-blue :) BTW, my spoken and passive Russian are much better than my written Russian, which is mediocre, to say the least. Halibutt 06:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on, these are only 74 groups, most of them completely regular :) OTOH, Ugro-Finnic languages have too many cases for me. THAT's difficult :)Halibutt 07:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

What's particularily sad about Tuwim and that poem is that in early 1920's he, along with the rest of Polish poets of that time, hated the whole Poland-related poetry. The best-known example is Lechoń's poem Herostrates, with quite a well-known part A wiosną - niech wiosnę, nie Polskę zobaczę. The time and history of 20th century made Tuwim change his mind a little bit... Halibutt 18:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, a story you might find funny a tad. One of my teachers went for an organized trip to Lithuania in late 1980's. Of course, the group of Polish teachers was assisted by KGB on all sides and so on, but there was also a Lithuanian guide that claimed he did not speak a word of Polish. So, he guided the group either silently or through a bizarre chain of German->French->Polish translation chain. On the last day one of the teachers to attend the trip broke her leg in Vilna. The guide was so nervous because of that that he forgot that he didn't speak Polish and... it turned out that his Polish was in fact much better than that of many of the Poles who were there.

I'm sure you must've heard hundreds of such stories about modern usage of Russian in post-Soviet states. Not that such reaction was anything bizarre... Halibutt 01:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Greater Serbia

I am in no way denying the existance of Croatian nationalism, merely its place in the article. The article is about Greater Serbia, and if there is any place that Croatian nationalism would go in that article (and I doubt there is) it would be much later on and discussing how its plans clash with the Greater Serbian concept (hypothetically speaking). As the 2nd sentence in the entire article it just seems like you're trying to say "Oh yeah, sure, Greater Serbia is kind of negative, but look: The Croats did this stuff too!" Live Forever 23:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Da pitam za svaki slucaj...

Osnivamo Vikimediju SCG 3. decembra, pa je pitanje da li postoji teorijska sansa da ti budes u to vreme u Beogradu? Mislim, jasno mi je da imas obaveze, ali na meni je da uputim pozivnicu. (Inace, ako bi dosao ovamo, imao bi sigurno kod nekog smestaj.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain me one thing, please? I fail to understand the Jewish ethnic group-religion relation. I mean, my friend converted to Judaism and it simply changed his ethnicity? If the basic Jewish concept is religion, why did then some (horrific) maniacs like Hitler try to exterminate a religious entity? HolyRomanEmperor 14:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes :S But, are the followers-of-Judaism and Jews one same thing? Does it mean that anyone who could want to be, could become a Jew (and stop being)? HolyRomanEmperor 21:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Eloquence

Haha. Well, thank you! Yes, I'm quite certain I'm in America. I offer in explanation that my English has been nursed by the British novels and stories I've been reading for ages. Thank you for the compliment. :) --User:Jenmoa 03:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Imas odgovor...

... na mojoj strani za razgovor na srpskoj Vikipediji. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I samo da dodam u vezi sa zvanjem: Valjda cemo jednog dana biti u situaciji da mozemo da platimo put do Srbije za drage goste, kao sto si ti. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Da.. ispao sam glup da te (jel' može bez persiranja?) pitam za ono... Ne razumijem jedino kakvu borbu pominješ? HolyRomanEmperor 13:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

i Velikosrpsku... i Veliko-islamsku, bilo kakav vandalizam! HolyRomanEmperor 18:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Test

Comment. Unsigned.

Date

So are you saying it's was in October? It appears to me it was either in October or September that he discovred it. It's clearly before October 5th since that's when Jimbo deleted the content. Nil Einne 04:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

hello

Sto se tice cirilici na Windows, mozes postaviti si srpsku tipkovnicu u Control Panelu.

Maine, je li? Mozda poznajes jednog mog - e kako se kaze na srpskom? - bivseg "su-klasnika" iz skole... --VKokielov 05:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Здраво!! :) Ko ti je bivshi suklasnik? :) To tell you the truth I don't know how you say it in serbian "su-klasnik".... Maybe, drug iz shkole.. Ne znam odakle si, ali pretpostavljam da si iz Rusije (greshim?). If so, there are tons of people here (Maine) from all over former USSR.. How do you speak Serbian/Croatian so well?

Lana Svetlana Miljkovic 05:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Pazi koja slucajnost, sad niodkuda naletih na ВКокијелов на Српској Википедији! а то да нас има пуно, има нас.. Кажу да је Југославија (бивша) најгушће расељена земља на свету :)

Svetlana Miljkovic 06:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

On "hard feelings" :)

When I woke up this morning, I had only about 2 minutes to check if something's going on mk.wiki., because I had to go to the faculty (major exam), and I saw your comment. And at first, I was like: "What the...???", because I didn't have the slightest clue what was the meaning of your words. On my way to the faculty, I was thinking "What did Kokielov mean with that...?", "Is it possible that he sent that to the wrong address?", "Was it something I said/did?". At some point, while I was in the middle of the exam, it occured to me (out of nowhere), that you're actually referring to a statement I gave 3 months ago about the correct pronounciation of Bulgaria (Бугарија or Болгарија). --FlavrSavr 11:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

However, meanwhile I forgot the formulation of your comment, and I was like: "Oh, no, I've pissed off VKokielov!". So, the first thing I did when I came back (and that was like 10 minutes ago), was checking the matter. I feel relieved because obviously, that comment wasn't ironic, or a result of your wrath :). --FlavrSavr 11:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Zinoviev (who is probably a Bulgarian), removed the statement as a whole, not me. Also, I found out that Krste Misirkov uses Бугарiа, бугарцки instead of Болгарија, болгарски. :) --FlavrSavr 11:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

zima.... brrrr

snijeg, snjeg, sneg... pao, ali nas nije iznenadio, mi ovde u maine smo se navikli na to! ali nije strasno kako ume da bude.. ali vidim, na vestima da su boston i nju jork zatrpani.. idi napolje i napravi Sneska Belica!! :)

Svetlana Miljkovic 00:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)