This is an archive of past discussions about User:Xompanthy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for the advice. I put something on the anon's talk page but you're right, I should make my case on the talk page too, just in case. Thanks again, and thanks for your support. Konman7222:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
For reference, with very few exceptions, most of the documents produced by the US Government are free of copyright. Therefore it is easy to find images by searching for "foo site:.mil". The site: flag tells it which domains to search in (.gov works as well). Run this with Google Image Search, and you should be good. Let me know if you're looking for anything else, I'm kind of the gun wacko around here. ... aa:talk17:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how many people don't know google has operators. That crowd is usually the same crowd as the ones that don't know what the word "operator" means in this context. Regardless of whether I know much about a topic, I do try to find an appropriate image for it. I remember reading encyclopedia britannica, and i'd mostly just skip the entries without images. Until much later, that is, and I started reading things like manpages for a living. :) You could probably help out, being as you have presumably two arms and two eyes. Check this out:
I've been mulling over the idea of automating that. Or at least, downloading it and queueing it. The hard part with that is you have to be able to verify copyright, and some of them have no copyright information. For example, that navsource site actually includes images from the general public that are either in the archives or some exhibit or other. So you can't just wholesale grab them. As far as weapons go, I do things like find the list of weapons that a particular branch uses (the Marines are real proud of 'em heh), and then go through wikipedia to see what is here and what isn't. Sometimes there isn't even an article, and I wind up writing a very short stub with an image. It's infinitely better than nothing. :) Turns out, most of our military-related articles have the terminology in them, but they're either not linked, or redlinked. That whole neck of the woods could be drastically improved.
But then, you didn't sign up to be conscripted into the wikipedia guns-and-bombs mafia. :)
Not without irony, I ran across this while trying to explain the "calibrated thermometer" (again, no article) in discussion of global warming. You may be interested. I don't have much hope, but it appears somebody is at least aware of it. (and knowing is half the battle!) ... aa:talk21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah I didn't notice you were from Croatia. I spotted one few days ago but failed to check the Sanader's article; I'm surprised that those sensitive articles seem to be off so many watchlists. I have put Sanader on mine, and I'll do the same with few more; a pair of extra eyes won't hurt. Duja►16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You could even say there's a systemic bias on the innernets as a whole. :) Yep, I was completely oblivious to it. I did figure you'd be interested in the links however (metafilter being usually useful or at least interesting). Cheers. ... aa:talk16:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Translation help?
Hi! I've asked a couple other people as well, but they seem to be busy. I found your name on the translators list, and while my request is in Serbian, I know Serbian and Croatian are close. Are they close enough to be able to help with Serbian translation? If so, the Serbian page for Golubac is what I'm hoping to have translated. Even just as bullet points would be fine, I'm just trying to get more information so I can fill out the Golubac fortress and Golubac pages. Hope you can help, and thanks either way, -Bbik06:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure about the Cyrillic. If you can find/code something up that easily so you can read it though, that'd be great! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Thanks! -Bbik21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Only hours? Can't complain about that. I might actually get somewhere again after all! :D -Bbik21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
So I just noticed the last tab is "latinica"... Was that there before?
So expect some errors, slightly strange sentences and whatnot.
I've tried translating both to and from German a few times; my German isn't that good. Usually people could still understand it. I can very easily understand what you've translated so far, so it's better than what I've subjected people to with German. I'm not worried about imperfection, and I certainly wasn't expecting a professional translation, so if you don't have the time or desire for that, it's not a problem. Since there are two articles here as compared to the one there, I'll probably have to tear it apart anyhow, so I can put the appropriate information in each article... Or maybe just merge the two, since they overlap so much. In any case, thanks for spending the time. -Bbik00:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No, no need for a tour guide in an encyclopedia. I was thinking of using the map itself though, the visual aid could still be useful. If it's from a tour guide, though, will whatever copyright status allow it to be used (since I can't read what the copyright there says, either... I hate not being able to answer my own questions.)? -Bbik11:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I can take care of the picture (It's "Golubac" and "Aleksandar Deroko" right? Which, if the name means that's who made it, makes it being public domain even stranger, but whatever...), though it may take me a bit of poking to figure out how to get the copyright info filled out so it doesn't get deleted. Have to learn sometime!
On a related note, I already have the translation for the majority of this page a couple sections up on my talk page. Is there any chance you wouldn't mind translating the last two paragraphs (no Cyrillic this time!), assuming it's not just a repeat of information that's already in the Serbian Wiki translation? Or are they as semi-sidetracked as the paragraphs before them?
Oh, a couple questions I had. Any idea what this Babakaj stone is or if it's mentioned anywhere in the English wiki? I'm not finding anything, so I'm guessing not, but perhaps the dual-language gives you a little more insight? Also, tower 10 which is "practically identical... to the Smederev fort," any chance that's this one in Smederevo? And one more that's above and beyond the call of duty, do you know why the Orthodox church in one tower means it was built by a Serbian noble? Was there no Orthodox Christianity in Hungary? (Obviously, I don't know much about religion.) -Bbik06:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Babakaj is in fact on the other side, then? Ok. And I would imagine it was some sort of adjustable thing, so they could let it out and have it sink out of the way or pull it tight and stop traffic. But that's a bit too much speculation to actually use, most likely. As for tower 10, I was more checking that "Smederev fort" is in fact the same as "Smederevo fort[ress]" (The picture was because there's not actually a page for it yet.) -- for all I know, that one little letter could make it mean someplace else entirely, though I'm fairly certain I'm "reading" links correctly enough to not believe that.
I'm back again! I've been doing some poking around to try and figure out what this Babakaj stone is (And now some poor person that knows Romanian is going to be getting questions too. For being a Romance language, it sure doesn't look it.); the pieces just weren't fitting together. It seems it actually is a rock, sticking out of the middle of the Danube. How blocking one half would stop traffic from passing on the other half, I don't know. Any chance the Serbian article says the chain was actually attached to the cliff on the other side, and mistakenly called that Babakaj, rather than saying it was connected to Babakaj? Does "Stena je sa Rumunske strane Dunava pre ulaska u klisuru" say anything useful/helpful about what this stone-thing is? (I'm guessing not... along the lines of the stone being on the Romanian side of the gorge or something? Yay for trying to pull sense out of two words and a couple others that look close enough to English. >.<)
On the other hand, I have no clue what this means. "Prekoputa Golubačkog grada iz vode štrči stena Babakaj, kao straža pred vratima Đerdapa. Priča se da su Turci odveli na ovu stenu lepu devojku i ucenili njenu babu sa sto dukata da joj puste unuku. Baba nije imala dukata pa su Turci počeli da muče devojku. U mukama je ona vikala : Babo pokaj se, zbog čega su kasnije ovu stenu nazvali "Babakaj"." (Taken from this page. Anything else useful in there?)
I hate not being able to read this stuff myself, it's beginning to feel like I'm asking you to do more work for my little project than I'm doing. I really need to find myself a Babel fish. -Bbik08:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And to add yet more confusion to it all, Babakaj as a cliff (or, perhaps even using that mountain translation) may not have been a misinterpretation. I've since found a passing English reference to a hill (a hill in the middle of steep cliffs seems a bit out of place) opposite Golubac being called Babakaj. (It also said there is a tower on the hill. A lucky-find German site (A foreign language I can read!) agreed there's a tower, the remains of St. Ladislaus Fort (also known as Senthlászlowára?). Ever heard of it? All I can find is stuff about the saint. I need to stop getting so sidetracked.) The German site had more stories about the rock too -- why it's there, how it got it's name, where the Košava originated from... Quite impressive the number of variations people can come up with.
I also found something about how the Iron Gate as a whole used to be near-impassable, until some kind of excavation cleared it out, around the mid-late 1800's. Between that and a lower flow before the dam was built, perhaps a chain to the stone would have been enough to stop river traffic. Though, the fact that everything refers to it being in the middle of the river still confuses me. Maybe it was connected to this Babakaj-hill-thing after all, especially if the stone's not actually in the gorge, but guarding the entrance. Yay confusion!
I'll stop rambling and go back to working on redoing that article now. And probably creating a few more after it. My original curiosity has taken on a life of its own. -Bbik20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
So, out of curiosity, what does "Kočina" mean? Wiki says krajina is border, and a bit of searching turns up the 1788-91 fight as the pageless "Dubica War" which took place around Bosanska Dubica/Hrvatska Dubica, but even the recent addition of a second name for the Bosnian town doesn't match Kočina, so... ? -Bbik02:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Lazar and Golubac
Hmm, and since I just noticed it, what's the significance of the bullet points and italicized bits in the history section (on the Serbian page, not your translation)? Why's it re-mention Lazar at the end, when he's already mentioned a couple paragraphs up? Much as interwiki links are nice, three rather common words just aren't telling me much! -Bbik06:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, none of the article is sourced. However, this particular point causes a bit of confusion because it is also mentioned on this page (same one as when I asked about the last two paragraphs earlier. In fact, what DO those two paragraphs say? Or at least, what is it that happened 1382-89, since nothing else mentions 1382?), third paragraph from the end. What I'm not so sure of is whether that was taken from the Serbian wiki, like the English section at the bottom was copied from Golubac, or not. The Wayback Machine shows the page as existing long before the Serbian wiki page, but it seems to have been changed completely between it's creation and it's current format, and I don't think the original mentions anything about Lazar owning Golubac or not, though with only poking at names/nearby dates, I can't be sure. On the other hand, the (current) page and the wiki page describe almost completely different time periods, so it seems unlikely that the single detail would've been taken from wiki if the rest wasn't.
At any rate, the timeline I have right now goes like this: 1335 - held by Hungary, somewhere between 1345-1355 - still held by Hungary, though surrounding Braničevo region was Serbian, 1355 - Dušan died, followed by Rastislalić family gaining influence/independence in Braničevo region (no mention of Golubac changing hands), 1379 - Lazar evicts the last Rastaslalić and gifts villages (wiki comment and other page both saying Golubac was still Hungarian, or at least not Serbian), 1389 -- Battle of Kosovo, during which Golubac was Serbian-held, and after which, it was Turk-held, then by 1391 it was back to Hungary again. So there's a gap in there somewhere, whether it's at the village-gifting or earlier than that I don't know, and in that gap, Golubac changed hands from Hungarian- to Serbian-held. And while it seems more than a little odd to have a fortification under different command than the surrounding area, it's not impossible, and the ten-year gap between 1379-1389 is plenty long enough for something to have happened causing the fortress to change sides.
So now we're back to what the page says happened in 1382. I suppose it's probably too much to hope that it says that's when Golubac went to Serbia, hmm? It would be so nice if all the bits of info I've collected weren't so full of piecemeal timelines. And this got rather long. -Bbik22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I knew there was another question I had... I finally remembered what it was.
"According to the contract from 1426., the city, along with Belgrade, was supposed to be turned over back to the Hungarians after the despot died."
Any idea what this 1426 contract is? If Stefan got Golubac in 1403 and died in 1427, what was 1426? Or did the "return upon death" clause get added later, with later being 1426? Also, is there any mention of possible confusion over whether it was in 1417 or 1427 that Golubac went to the Turks? -Bbik02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go poke Duja and see if he has any opinions on it all, but I wanted to let you know that I responded on my page this time. If there's a third person involved, may as well make it at least a little easier to follow. -Bbik20:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
More questions...
But there are no dates this time, I promise! If the fortress setup intro says there are three parts (forward, back, upper), then the Forward city description says the upper section is actually half of the forward part, does the Upper city section say anything useful to define it specifically, or is it all just tour guide directions? For that matter, any chance it clarifies which tower the "citadel" mentioned in the intro is? Thanks, -Bbik01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Or... maybe I'm just looking at it all wrong. Is the upper city within towers 1-4, 3-4-6-7, or 1-2-6-7? If it's 1-4, and the back city is the corner made by 2-4-5, then the forward city could have the upper and lower parts (3-6-9-5) without actually overlapping the other cities. Is that what it's supposed to be, and I just misread your translation? That still leaves the citadel tower up for debate, though. Unless by citadel it means dungeon-stronghold (tower 1)? -Bbik02:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
And a super-nitpick: Was the moat only previously linked to the Danube, or is it still? Or is it ambiguous in Serbian, too? (This sentence, for reference: "In front of the fortress, the forward wall (I) makes up the outer wall of the moat, which was likely filled with water as it was linked to the Danube.") Better yet, is it still filled with water? Though, I have a feeling the article doesn't specify that at all, does it? -Bbik05:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, for clarity's sake, I've finally transcribed the map and labeled the four quarters. Since I get the feeling my attempted section-labeling made at least as little sense to you as the axes do to me, let's try with the new picture. My understanding, after much glaring, staring, and comparing, of how the fortress is split up: Upper city is A, Forward city is B (upper part) and C (lower part), and Back city is D. Is that what you were trying to say too? If not, what were you labeling each letter? Granted, it's more or less guesswork anyhow, but if we're both saying the same thing, then that lends some strength to the guessing. (And yes, the upper city vs upper part thing was what confused me originally.)
Hehe :) I got the Z axis... and then sat there wondering what happened to Y. I also can't remember if we ever dealt with X and Y flipped like that, so that was the biggest point of confusion. All good now, though, that picture provided instant clarification! -Bbik17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
First, the easy part. The forward city is comprised of the upper and the lower part which were divided by a wall linking the 4th and 7th tower. I take it the past tense there is actually what the Serbian page said? (And this time, I'm actually not even trying to make it otherwise, just confirming -- the pictures I've found don't seem to show any wall there, either.)
Second, The back city is divided from the upper by a wall (which connects the 2nd and 4th tower)... Are those two past or present? I can't really tell from pictures, they're all at the wrong angles, so either way works; I'm mostly just double checking.
The same question about the barracks by tower 5, is that present tense, or are they ever called remains? (In the pictures that show that area, it seems to look more like a few walls than an actual building.)
And again, the same question for the balcony on tower 3. Is it still there, do you know?
Not quite a tense question, but related. Though, I don't know if it's really answerable. The upper part does not have buildings but has a pathway... Is that to say that it doesn't now have buildings, or does that also mean that it didn't have any then, either? It would make sense to not have any (now or then) since the forward city was essentially the first major line of defense, but if it's possible to confirm that line one way or the other, that'd be nice.
And then, On the wall that separates the upper from the lower part is a gate that leads to the upper city. The upper part does not have buildings... Is that "city" supposed to be part, or does it actually mean there's a gate (somehow) that goes directly between the lower part of the forward city and the upper city?
For clarification's sake, in this line about tower 10, It controls the passage over the Danube and the entrance to the city harbor..., does "city" in this case mean the section (forward city) or Golubac as a whole? Or is that even clear in Serbian, since it seems "grad" is used for nearly everything related to Golubac? Also, a fairly minor thing, but is it in fact harbor, or is it port?
What's the deal with the path in the lower part? Along the path was a ditch 0.5 meters wide and 0.75 meters deep from which a steep decline starts. They dug a ditch when there was already a near-drop-off half a meter off the path? Or am I misunderstanding something?
When tower 8 is mentioned, is it ever in the past, as compared to the others being in the present? In the pictures I've found, the closest I can come to picking out a tower where 8 should be is in thesetwo. In the first one, I think that triangular chunk that's missing is where the tower's supposed to be. In the second, I think the tower was the bit of wall remaining to the right of the street sign (still with the chunk missing), and the low curved bit on the ground in front of it in that case was probably either the reinforcement the Turks added, or the end of the forward wall.
Oh, and as for the moat... in the top left of this picture, I think that greenish water between the bit connected to tower 10 out in the water and the mostly submerged squiggly line just above it is what used to be the moat. You can see it in the first external picture, too, where all the algae's growing. That would certainly explain how it's still connected to the Danube, yet not really filled -- part's just completely underwater, and the rest is most likely either blocked off, or filled in with dirt for the road.
I'm almost done with this whole thing (If I would just stop procrastinating!), so this should be the end of the questions, or close to it. I really appreciate all the help -- especially since I've filled up your talk page all by myself! :) -Bbik03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Tada!
Golubac fortress, new and improved. It's not really done, persay, but it's reached a point where I can't do any more. Hopefully I'll hear from a couple people soon and they'll have new information, but until then... How's it look? For all the help you've been in translating/clarifying details, does it look like I missed anything? Did I do an ok job with the uncertain parts (specifically the whole bit about whether Lazar held Golubac or not)? There are a bunch of questions on the talk page, too, though considering how thoroughly I've already been through the stuff you've translated, I'm guessing you don't know the answers to any of them. But hey, if you do, please share! :)
Thanks again for all your help, I wouldn't have been able to add nearly as much to the article without it, considering how much of it came from Serbian sources. -Bbik03:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the one very minor question I forgot: What does the caption for the picture (Tlocrt Golubačke tvrđave,koji je radio Aleksandar Deroko) actually say? I'm guessing it's not anything useful, but might as well make sure. -Bbik20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi again!
Hi xompanthy! Any chance you can be recruited for some more translating? If you feel up to it, Duja's found me these [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/deo-iz-knjige-smederevo-1430-370744.html?p=4014110 two] links, but doesn't have time for full translations/summaries. He's translated the right side of the first link, and one of the paragraphs in the second (That one's long. Really long. It's far too much to ask for a full translation of that, but if you could pick out highlights, that would work. Perhaps the part that mentions Golubac, too? I saw it in there somewhere...), so you can ignore those parts. Or if you don't have time or are sick of all the questions, that's fine too. I still need to work in what I have, anyhow. Thanks either way :) -Bbik06:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for at least responding to let me know. Good luck with everything! -Bbik01:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop violating
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors, which it appears you have not followed at Croatia. Thank you. -- Bg007
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Croatia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is your first warning. [Serbs were neither the only refugees in the war, nor the majority].I am talking about Bljesak and Oluja not about whole war.Because of that ethnic cleansing Croatian generals are in Hague Trubinal,not Serbian. Please do NOT substitute fact for fiction. Thank you. -- Bg007
Are you just copy-pasting the warnings I put on your talk page here? Do you honestly think that will get you anywhere? You have a well documented history of not following wikipedia policy (90% of your talk page are BOT WARNINGS!). Trying to piss me off will not work in your favor, and will not help your comments survive reverts from apparently numerous other editors. It will only make me cranky, and will land you an administrative report, which I am filing out right now. -- xompanthy21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
One more thing... I never denied Croatian war crimes. And the only reason why YOUR generals are not in the Hague is because Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić, two of the greatest mass murderers in the last 50 years have not been caught yet. Oh, and Slobodan Milošević died while on trial. I forgot that. As you can clearly see, the article (and this is the consensus) states that there were refugees on both sides. It doesn't even say (and the facts support this) the ratio of non-Serb refugees (Croatians, Bosniaks, etc.) to Serb refugees is like 50:1. It doesn't. 'Cause it really doesn't matter, in my view. Both sides did horrible things. Please take note, I am not denying this. Hell, my father is Serbian. So what in all honesty is your problem man? Are you saying there were NO non-Serbian refugees? That the Serbs were the ONLY people who lost their homes? 'Cause if you are, we really have nothing else to talk about. You might as well call Earth a ping-pong ball while you're on a roll. -- xompanthy22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
'Cause it really doesn't matter, in my view. Both sides did horrible things. Please take note, I am not denying this.'----It is unbeleivible that crimes are not important for you.That shows your moral,but maybe it is mirror of majority in Croatia. 'Hell, my father is Serbian',and my is 'Croat'. But don't worry about truth,Franjo Tudjman ,Gojko Susak , Janko Bobetko unfortunetally escaped trial. Serbs of course are not only victims,I sorrow all victims of war.What about you?We don't have singer such as Tomson,we don't have names of WWII mass killers for schools,etc... But never mind,I'm not bitter.Ev. is ok.Best vishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bg007 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
Oh for the love of God... I never said that I don't care about the crimes. I meant I didn't care about the article mentioning the 50:1 ratio. Of course I care about the crimes, let's not get ridiculous here. And Thompson, he caters to a minority in Croatia. I don't listen to him, I don't like his songs. Never had an album, never will. I believe he's an asshole exploiting naive and stupid people, of which there are too many in both Croatia and Serbia. This discussion has all the potential to draw out into a 'we did this, but you did that too', so we might as well end it now. The whole point (that seems to have been lost along the way) is that you shouldn't insert into articles material that YOU would like to see there. The material needs to be NEUTRAL and UNBIASED. That's the point of wikipedia. And saying the Serbs were the refugees without mentioning the vast majority of others is NOT neutral. That's why I reverted your edit, and that's why other editors reverted it later on too. I, for instance, would like nothing more than to write 'Nikola Tesla is Croatian' in the Nikola Tesla article, but I'm not doing that, 'cause it's not neutral (or entirely true either). You see, Wikipedia is neither your's nor mine, so your and mine opinions have no place here.
That's pretty much it. I consider this matter closed. I hope in the future, you will reconsider your edits in view of NPOV policy before committing them. A sad brate ajmo dalje već, ovo mi je dosadilo... -- xompanthy17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
